Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank

99 F.2d 583

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1938-10-29
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The decree of the District Court of April 20, 1938, is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion of April 16, 1938, and for the further reason that the term of court at which the decree was entered, when the petition to amend was filed, had long since passed, and the amendment sought went to the substance of the decree and not to its form. See Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70, 48 S.Ct. 97, 72 L.Ed. 168; Hart v. Wiltsee et al., 1 Cir., 25 F.2d 863, and cases there cited; Casey v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

SPRAGUE v. TICONIC NAT. BANK,99 F.2d 583(1st Cir. 1938)

SPRAGUE v. TICONIC NAT. BANK et al.

No. 3347.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

October 29, 1938.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maine; John A. Peters, Judge.

Suit by Lottie F. Sprague against Ticonic National Bank and others to establish a claim for priority and a lien on securities of the defendant bank for the amount of plaintiff's deposit, wherein decrees were entered for the plaintiff who, pending determination of the Supreme Court on certiorari, filed a petition in the District Court for an allowance of counsel fees and disbursements over and above statutory costs. From a decree dismissing the petition, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Harvey D. Eaton, of Waterville, Me., for appellant.

F. Harold Dubord, of Waterville, Me., for appellees.

Before BINGHAM and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the District Court of April 20, 1938, is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion of April 16, 1938, and for the further reason that the term of court at which the decree was entered, when the petition to amend was filed, had long since passed, and the amendment sought went to the substance of the decree and not to its form. See Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota,275 U.S. 70,48 S.Ct. 97,72 L.Ed. 168; Hart v. Wiltsee et al., 1 Cir.,25 F.2d 863, and cases there cited; Casey v. Sterling Cider Co., 1 Cir.,15 F.2d 52, and Schell v. Dodge,107 U.S. 629,2 S.Ct. 830,27 L.Ed. 601.

The decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellees.Page 618