CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO.
v.
PALMER ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petitioning company was not entitled to an allowance from the debtor's estate for expenses incurred in proving a claim for damages.
The New Haven Railroad rejected a lease and subsequently underwent reorganization. The Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company incurred significant e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company for an allowance, to be paid out of the estate of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company — currently in reorganization under § 77, 11 U.S.C.A. § 205 — for expenses incurred in proving a claim for damages from the rejection of a lease by the New Haven.
In 1935, the New Haven filed its petition for reorganization under § 77, and shortly thereafter rejected its 999-year lease of certain transportation properties from the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company. For the next five years the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company engaged in a successful, but expensive, litigation to prove a claim for damages. See In re New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 Cir., 95 F. 2d 483; Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. v. Palmer, 305 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 316, 83 L.Ed. 309; Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 109 F. 2d 568; Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544, 61 S.Ct. 379, 85 L.Ed. 336. Herein, it has sought an allowance from the New Haven estate for the expenses (including attorneys’ fees) thereby incurred by it.
The case is controlled by Warren v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 132 F. 2d 665, decided concurrently with it; for the reasons there set forth, we affirm the order of the district court denying the allowance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Boston & Providence R.R. Corp., 428 F.2d 159 (1st Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Palmer v. Conn. Ry. & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1941)
- Conn. Ry. & Lighting Co. v. Palmer, 305 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1939)
- Warren v. Palmer, 132 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1942)
- Conn. Ry. & Lighting Co. v. Palmer. in re New York, 109 F.2d 568 (2d Cir. 1940)
- In re NEW York, 95 F.2d 483 (2d Cir. 1938)