Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.

174 F.2d 288

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-04-29
Topic
general

FRANK, Circuit Judge After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master’s report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master’s recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions
PRUDENCE-BONDS CORP. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION,174 F.2d 288(2nd Cir. 1949)
PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION et al. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION et
al.
No. 213, Docket 21252.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 29, 1949.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Proceeding in the matter of the reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act of the Prudence-Bonds Corporation, debtor. From an order adopting a master's recommendation with reference to the matter of costs, the Prudence-Bonds Corporation and George E. Eddy appeal, opposed by the Prudence Realization Corporation, and others.

Affirmed.

See also76 F. Supp. 643.
Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for Prudence-Bonds Corporation.

Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for George E. Eddy.

Irving L. Schanzer, of New York City, for Prudence Realization Corporation.

Maclay, Lyeth Williams, of New York City (J.M. Richardson Lyeth, of New York City, of counsel), for President and Directors of the Manhattan Co.

Geo. C. Wildermuth, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for debtor.
Before CHASE, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
FRANK, Circuit Judge
After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir.,165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master's report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master's recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.

The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers' fees or the like. But the sole issuePage 289is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.

We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to a special master. See F.R. 53(b); Newman Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949,173 F.2d 609.

Affirmed.