Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Lay
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 7, 1932No. 6760PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
The prior history of this ease appears in (C. C. A.) 48 F.(2d) 79, where an order appointing a receiver was reversed and the trial court was “directed to settle the accounts of the receiver and to order the receiver to turn over to the appellant all property seized under its order by the receiver as soon as the appellant has secured an appointment as receiver thereof in the action now pending in the state court.” Mitchell v. Lay (C. C. A.) 48 F.(2d) 79, 85.
To reverse the order settling the account, approved December 15, 1931, made pursuant to the above direction, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mitchell v. LayCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- Hickey v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1905
- Walton N. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. LieuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Sylacauga Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Dr. Arthur S. Jones, Successor to the United States of America v. Village of Proctorville, Ohio, a Municipal Corporation of Lawrence County, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- In re California Land Buyers SyndicateDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1938