Legal Opinion

Favour v. Hill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 21, 1943No. 9847Published

1Opinion of the Court

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners seek to have us make what they call a “directive” to the district court or “other order” requiring obedience to our mandate to that court. Favour v. Hill, 123 F.2d 77. Our mandate ordered the allowance of petitioners’ claim in a receivership proceeding, the claim being for “$1,000.00, with interest at 6% from January 1, 1934, until paid, • together with $38.61 costs.”

Petitioners’ petition sets forth an order of the district court denying a petition to that court to have the claim, which clearly included interest from January 1, 1934, allowed as including such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd. Muelhens, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  3. Favour v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API