From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Advance Printing Litho Co. v. Bentz

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nov 30, 1967
387 F.2d 952 (3d Cir. 1967)

Opinion

No. 16637.

Argued November 6, 1967.

Decided November 30, 1967.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Joseph P. Willson, Judge.

Warren W. Bentz, Erie, Pa., for appellant.

M.E. Maurer, Wexler, Mulder Weisman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Wolf, Block, Schorr Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., Kupfer, Silberfeld, Nathan Danziger, New York City, Michael L. Temin, Philadelphia, Pa., Eli S. Silberfeld, New York City, amici curiæ, National Commercial Finance Conference Inc.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.


OPINION OF THE COURT


This is an appeal by Warren W. Bentz, trustee in bankruptcy, from an order of the district court reversing a decision of the bankruptcy referee.

The district court held that the referee erred in reforming the corporate bankrupt's contract with Rosenthal Rosenthal, Inc., a secured creditor, so that the latter would receive $6,000 less from the receiver's sale of its collateral than the amount due it under its perfected security agreement. In reversing the referee, the district court also held that Rosenthal was entitled to reasonable compensation for attorney's services rendered.

We have carefully examined the record and can find no error. We will, therefore, affirm the order of the district court on its well-reasoned opinion. In Matter of Advance Printing Litho Co., 277 F. Supp. 101 (W.D.Pa., 1967).


Summaries of

Advance Printing Litho Co. v. Bentz

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Nov 30, 1967
387 F.2d 952 (3d Cir. 1967)
Case details for

Advance Printing Litho Co. v. Bentz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ADVANCE PRINTING LITHO CO., Bankrupt, Rosenthal…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Nov 30, 1967

Citations

387 F.2d 952 (3d Cir. 1967)

Citing Cases

Matter of J & L Transport, Inc.

J & L would have been freed from its obligation of maintenance under clause 9.          J & L argues that the…

In re Schrader Body, Inc.

" [Vanston [Bondholders Protective] Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156 [ 67 S.Ct. 237, 91 L.Ed. 162] (1946).]"…