In re Liquidation of Columbian Bldg & Loan Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*36OPINION
By THE COURT
It is obvious that the court viewed the proceeding as one in chancery. This conclusion would have support if the proceeding was predicated upon §687-2, GC, or was an action recognized in chancery practice. If the court had considered the application of Mr. Levinson and had fixed or denied a fee after consideration, it would have been upon the basis that Mr. Levinson had rendered services, the effect of which was to benefit those who were entitled to the fund, i.e., the assets of the Columbian. If, then, Mr. Levinson’s client had any standing in the trial court as an…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kelsey v. KroegerOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Kelsey v. Wagner, Supt.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1947
- Squire v. HoffmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- Young v. KroegerOhio Court of Appeals · 1937