Koppel Industrial Car & Equipment Co. v. Lee

The court below seems to me to have correctly interpreted and applied the former opinion and mandate of this court. 295 P. 23.

While the former record was, as there pointed out, “inadequate for us to determine in exact detail the rights of the parties,” it was carefully guarded, and did not, as I think, hold that the appellant’s priority right “was to be determined as of the date of the beginning of the receivership.” The date when such right took effect was left open, as is shown by the following (295 F. 27):

“It is now suggested by counsel that, since the entry of the decree complained of,…