Legal Opinion

McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Scandinavian-American Bldg. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 3, 1924No. 4172PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRudkin, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] This was not a suit to set aside a consummated sale, or a sale after confirmation by the court, for mere inadequacy of price, and for that reason many of the authorities cited by the appellants have little or no application. Here the property was ordered sold subject to confirmation, and the court reserved the right to reject any and all bids for inadequacy of price. In the exercise of this reserved power the court was vested with a wide discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will seldom be reviewed by an appellate court. The situation…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bronson v. KinzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
  2. Shepherd v. PepperSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Dane v. DanielWashington Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Bailey v. HendricksonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Levy v. Broadway-Carmen Building Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank of Lockport v. Eagle Building Co.New York Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Levy v. Broadway-Carmen Building Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1934
  4. France Milling Co. v. Washburn-Crosby Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API