Legal Opinion

King v. Hiawatha Silk Mills, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 25, 1924No. 201PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). If the court had power, the reduction of the allowances was within its discretion. Ordinarily an order making allowances is interlocutory, but in this case the order of July 7, 1923, surcharged the receivers as on a final accounting, and ordered that they be not discharged, nor the bonds filed by. them canceled, until after repayment-of the surcharged amount. Thus the order or decree of July 7, 1923, is a final and appealable order or decree. The order of March 1, 1922, provided that Dynch should receive $2,500 “on account of services rendered to date,” and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central Railroad of IowaUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
  2. Brooks v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1923
  3. Smith v. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Potts v. Village of HaverstrawCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  2. Cohan v. RichmondCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
  3. Cravens v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
  4. Cravens v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API