174 F.2d 288 - Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp. — 174 F.2d 288

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2010

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1See also 76 F.Supp. 643.

¶2Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for Prudence-Bonds Corporation.

¶3Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for George E. Eddy.

¶4Irving L. Schanzer, of New York City, for Prudence Realization Corporation.

¶5Maclay, Lyeth & Williams, of New York City (J. M. Richardson Lyeth, of New York City, of counsel), for President and Directors of the Manhattan Co.

¶6Geo. C. Wildermuth, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for debtor.

¶7Before CHASE, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

¶8FRANK, Circuit Judge

¶9After 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.

¶10 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 *289is 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.

¶11We 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.

¶12Affirmed.