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