MASON
v.
PARADISE IRR. DIST.
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 a bondholder's claim of unfair treatment in a reorganization plan was foreclosed by prior precedent, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside a stipulation regarding costs.
A bondholder appealed an interlocutory decree approving a reorganization plan for an irrigation district. The bondholder argued he was treated unfairl…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plan Of Reorganization cases and more on FLexlaw
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is by a bondholder from an interlocutory decree approving a reorganization plan of a California irrigation district organized under the California Irrigation District Act of 1897, Cal.Stat. 1897, p. 254.
But two points are presented.
Firstly, it is contended that the bondholder has not been treated fairly or equally in the reorganization plan inasmuch as other creditors may be awarded 4% refunding bonds while he must take cash¡ for the bonds he is required to surrender. Appellant admits that this court has held contrary to his contention in West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 1940, 114 F. 2d 654 and Lorber v. Vista Irr. Dist., 9 Cir., 1944, 127 F. 2d 628, 9 Cir., 1944, 143 F. 2d 282. He contends that the Fifth Circuit has decided otherwise in State of Texas v. Tabasco Consolidated School Dist., 132 F. 2d 62, 133 F. 2d 196, 142 F. 2d 58, 1944. We adhere to our viewpoint as expressed in this court’s decisions as cited.
Secondly, it is submitted that the trial court erred in granting a motion by appellee to set aside a stipulation theretofore made by the parties and accepted by the court. The only part of the stipulation in issue is that part which provided that appellant should be awarded $1000 costs and expenses on the appeal. Stipulations of this nature are subject to the discretion of the trial court and can be attacked only upon the showing that such discretion was abused and that the court’s ruling is inequitable. No inequitable circumstance is asserted by appellant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Bloom, 164 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1947)
-
Taylor v. Alabama, 335 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1948)
-
Moody v. United States, 874 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W. Coast Life INS. Co. v. Merced Irr. Dist., 114 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1940)
- Lorber v. Vista Irr. Dist., 127 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1942)
- State OF Tex. v. Tabasco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 132 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1942)
- State OF Tex. v. Tabasco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 133 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1943)
- State OF Tex. v. Tabasco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 142 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1944)
- Lorber v. Vista Irr. Dist., 143 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1944)