Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co.

Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 74 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1935)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1935-01-14
Topic: bankruptcy

WILBUR, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from an order subsequently entered in the same proceeding in which the appeal in case No. 7587, Republic Supply Co. of Cal. v. Richfield Oil Co. of Cal. (C. C.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 12 opinions

REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. OF CALIF. v. RICHFIELD OIL,74 F.2d 909(9th Cir. 1935)

REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. RICHFIELD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA.

CITIES SERVICE CO. v. TOMS et al.^fn*

No. 7588.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 14, 1935.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division; William P. James, Judge.

Suit by the Republic Supply Company of California against the Richfield Oil Company of California. From an order denying a motion of the Cities Service Company to vacate or modify an order approving a statement of the financial condition of defendant and the Pan American Petroleum Company, a letter and notice to bondholders and an advertisement to be published in the consolidated equity receiverships of the properties of such corporations, and to give G. Parker Toms and others, constituting the so-called reorganization committee, certain instructions, the Cities Service Company appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

See, also,4 F. Supp. 153.

Hill, Morgan Bledsoe, Benjamin F. Bledsoe, Charles P. McCarthy, Elvon Musick, and Howard Burrell, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Alexander Macdonald and A. Stevens Halsted, Jr., both of Los Angeles, Cal., Colin C. Ives, of New York City, Jefferson P. Chandler, Leo S. Chandler, and Robert B. Murphey, all of Los Angeles, Cal. (Bauer, MacDonald, Schultheis Pettit, ofPage 910Los Angeles, Cal., Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine Wood, of New York City, and Chandler, Wright Ward and Call Murphey, all of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellees.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order subsequently entered in the same proceeding in which the appeal in case No. 7587, Republic Supply Co. of Cal. v. Richfield Oil Co. of Cal. (C.C.A.)74 F.2d 907, was taken. The appeal in the case at bar is from an order of the District Court entered May 22, 1934, denying the motion of appellant, Cities Service Company, that the District Court vacate or modify its order theretofore made in said cause on April 23, 1934, and to give to the so-called reorganization committee in said cause certain instructions set forth in said motion.

Pursuant to the order of April 19, 1934, from which the appeal in case No. 7587 was taken, the reorganization committee petitioned the District Court to approve the statement of financial condition of the Richfield Oil Company of California and Pan American Petroleum Company, the letter and notice to be sent to the bondholders, and the advertisement to be published, all of which were attached to the petition. In its order of April 23, 1934, the District Court approved each of these, and it is this order that appellant sought by its motion to have the District Court vacate or modify.

The general rule is that no appeal will lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or modify a judgment, decree, or order. Smith v. U.S. ex rel. Gorlo (C.C.A.)52 F.2d 848; Connor v. Peugh's Lessee, 18 How. 394, 15 L. Ed. 432; In re Gelino's, Inc. (C.C.A.)51 F.2d 875; International Bank v. Securities Corp., 59 App. D.C. 72,32 F.2d 968; Painter v. Union Trust Co. (C.C.A.) 246 F. 240; Willis v. Davis (C.C.A.) 184 F. 889; 3 C.J. p. 521, § 535.

The order of April 23, 1934, was not a final order so as to be appealable, and the order denying a motion to vacate or modify such an order is likewise not appealable. Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., No. 7587 (C.C.A.)74 F.2d 907.

Appeal dismissed.

Rehearing denied April 1, 1935. ↩