Hall v. Reynolds

Eighth Circuit

Hall v. Reynolds

224 F. 103, 139 C.C.A. 659, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1858

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1915

DocketNo. 154

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 224 F. 103 (Hall v. Reynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Reynolds, 224 F. 103, 139 C.C.A. 659, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1858 (8th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] It is the settled rule of this court, based upon decisions of the Supreme Court, that in a petition to revise, under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, the power of the appellate court is limited to questions of law only, and it cannot review findings of facts made by the District Court. In re Rosser, 101 Fed. 562, 41 C. C. A. 497; In re Baum, 169 Fed. 410, 94 C. C. A. 632; In re Frank, 182 Fed. 794, 105 C. C. A. 226; Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v. Alles, 197 Fed. 274, 116 C. C. A. 636.

[2] As the only questions involved in this proceeding are questions of fact, whether the allowance made was a reasonable compensation [104]*104for the services rendered, and whether the services rendered by the two attorneys were of such a nature that the allowance to them should be apportioned by the court, there are no questions of law for this court to revise. .

The petition is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1] It is the settled rule of this court, based upon decisions of the Supreme Court, that in a petition to revise, under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, the power of the appellate court is limited to questions of law only, and it cannot review findings of facts made by the District Court. In re Rosser, 101 Fed. 562, 41 C. C. A. 497; In re Baum, 169 Fed. 410, 94 C. C. A. 632; In re Frank, 182 Fed. 794, 105 C. C. A. 226; Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v. Alles, 197 Fed. 274, 116 C. C. A. 636.

[2] As the only questions involved in this proceeding are questions of fact, whether the allowance made was a reasonable compensation [104]*104for the services rendered, and whether the services rendered by the two attorneys were of such a nature that the allowance to them should be apportioned by the court, there are no questions of law for this court to revise. .

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 F. 103, 139 C.C.A. 659, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-reynolds-ca8-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack