Gelberg v. Richardson

Ninth Circuit

Gelberg v. Richardson

82 F.2d 314, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1936

DocketNo. 7966

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 F.2d 314 (Gelberg v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gelberg v. Richardson, 82 F.2d 314, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980 (9th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, as attorney for a creditor’s committee, petitioned the District Court for an order directing appellee, as receiver for Western Blind & Screen Company, to pay appellant a fee of $1,250 for services alleged to have been rendered in the receivership proceeding described in Gripton v. Richardson (C.C.A.9) 82 F.(2d) 313, decided this day. From a decree denying appellant’s petition, he prosecutes this appeal.

Although it did not terminate the receivership proceeding, the decree determined appellant’s rights by rejecting his claim. Such a decree is “final,” within the meaning of section 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225, and is, therefore, appealable. Dexter Horton National Bank v. Hawkins (C.C.A.9) 190 F. 924, 926. Gripton v. Richardson, supra.

Appellant filed in the District Court an assignment of errors, but his brief filed in this court contains no specification of errors. Our rule 24 provides that every appellant’s brief shall contain a specification of the errors relied upon; that in equity cases the specification shall state, as particularly as may be, in what the decree is alleged to be erroneous; and that errors not specified according to this rule will be disregarded. Appellant has not complied with this rule. Not having been specified in his brief, the alleged errors assigned by appellant might and perhaps should be deemed to have been waived and, for that reason, might well be disregarded. LIowever, we have not disregarded them, but have considered them all, and find no reversible error.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, as attorney for a creditor’s committee, petitioned the District Court for an order directing appellee, as receiver for Western Blind & Screen Company, to pay appellant a fee of $1,250 for services alleged to have been rendered in the receivership proceeding described in Gripton v. Richardson (C.C.A.9) 82 F.(2d) 313, decided this day. From a decree denying appellant’s petition, he prosecutes this appeal.

Although it did not terminate the receivership proceeding, the decree determined appellant’s rights by rejecting his claim. Such a decree is “final,” within the meaning of section 128 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225, and is, therefore, appealable. Dexter Horton National Bank v. Hawkins (C.C.A.9) 190 F. 924, 926. Gripton v. Richardson, supra.

Appellant filed in the District Court an assignment of errors, but his brief filed in this court contains no specification of errors. Our rule 24 provides that every appellant’s brief shall contain a specification of the errors relied upon; that in equity cases the specification shall state, as particularly as may be, in what the decree is alleged to be erroneous; and that errors not specified according to this rule will be disregarded. Appellant has not complied with this rule. Not having been specified in his brief, the alleged errors assigned by appellant might and perhaps should be deemed to have been waived and, for that reason, might well be disregarded. LIowever, we have not disregarded them, but have considered them all, and find no reversible error.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F.2d 314, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelberg-v-richardson-ca9-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack