PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION ET AL.
v.
PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION 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 apportionment of costs is within the sound discretion of the district judge and found no abuse of discretion.
Following a prior mandate, the district court awarded costs to appellant Eddy against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. The cour…
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 Apportionment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge
After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F. 2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master’s report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master’s recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.
The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers’ fees or the like. But the sole issue is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.
We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to-a special master. See F.R. 53(b) ; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F. 2d 609.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 758 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir. 1985)
-
Farmer v. Arabian Am. OIL Co., 324 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1963)
-
Reeves Bros., Inc. v. U. S. Laminating Corp. & Travis Rauch, 417 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1969)
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
- Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corp. (New Company), 165 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1947)
- Newman & Bisco v. Realty Assocs. Sec. Corp., 173 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1949)