Kammerer v. Kroeger

Supreme Court

Kammerer v. Kroeger

299 U.S. 302, 57 S. Ct. 196, 81 L. Ed. 253, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 21, 1936

DocketNos. 522—528

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 U.S. 302 (Kammerer v. Kroeger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kammerer v. Kroeger, 299 U.S. 302, 57 S. Ct. 196, 81 L. Ed. 253, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 28 (1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These seven appeals present the same question. Under §§ 687 to 687-23, 115 Ohio Laws 3, § 1, et seg., effective February 27, 1933, the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations of the State of Ohio took possession of the assets of the above-mentioned associations, respectively, for the purpose of liquidation. The Superintendent sought authority to borrow money from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to pay off claims alleged to be prior to the shareholders’ claims against such associations and to pledge the assets as security. Appellant shareholders, on behalf of all the shareholders of the respective associations, through their counsel, successfully opposed the Superintendent’s applications. Thereupon appellants filed applications for the allowance of their counsel fees and expenses out of the assets of the associations. The Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, on motion of the Superintendent, struck these applications from the files upon the ground that under the Ohio statutes the court did not have jurisdiction to consider or allow such fees. Motions for new trial and rehearing were overruled. The Court of Appeals of Montgomery County sustained the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas. Appellants then appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Ohio and that court dismissed the appeals on the ground that “no debatable constitutional question” was involved. 131 O. S. 330; 2 N. E. (2d) 823.

We find no basis for the contention that in denying appellants’ claim to be paid their counsel fees and ex *304 penses out of the assets in the hands of the liquidator, upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to make such an allowance, any right of the appellants under the Federal Constitution has been infringed. The question is one of state practice and remedy. The motions to dismiss the appeals are granted and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Iowa Central Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 280, 281; McDonald v. Oregon Navigation Co., 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 166.

Dismissed.

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

These seven appeals present the same question. Under §§ 687 to 687-23, 115 Ohio Laws 3, § 1, et seg., effective February 27, 1933, the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations of the State of Ohio took possession of the assets of the above-mentioned associations, respectively, for the purpose of liquidation. The Superintendent sought authority to borrow money from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to pay off claims alleged to be prior to the shareholders’ claims against such associations and to pledge the assets as security. Appellant shareholders, on behalf of all the shareholders of the respective associations, through their counsel, successfully opposed the Superintendent’s applications. Thereupon appellants filed applications for the allowance of their counsel fees and expenses out of the assets of the associations. The Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, on motion of the Superintendent, struck these applications from the files upon the ground that under the Ohio statutes the court did not have jurisdiction to consider or allow such fees. Motions for new trial and rehearing were overruled. The Court of Appeals of Montgomery County sustained the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas. Appellants then appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Ohio and that court dismissed the appeals on the ground that “no debatable constitutional question” was involved. 131 O. S. 330; 2 N. E. (2d) 823.

We find no basis for the contention that in denying appellants’ claim to be paid their counsel fees and ex *304 penses out of the assets in the hands of the liquidator, upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to make such an allowance, any right of the appellants under the Federal Constitution has been infringed. The question is one of state practice and remedy. The motions to dismiss the appeals are granted and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Iowa Central Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 280, 281; McDonald v. Oregon Navigation Co., 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 166.

Dismissed.

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 U.S. 302, 57 S. Ct. 196, 81 L. Ed. 253, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kammerer-v-kroeger-scotus-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack