Leon Wiesen Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co.

Third Circuit

Leon Wiesen Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co.

78 F.2d 1018, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1935

DocketNo. 5644

StatusPublished

This text of 78 F.2d 1018 (Leon Wiesen Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leon Wiesen Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co., 78 F.2d 1018, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942 (3d Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks to vacate an order of distribution made by the court below in an equity receivership. After notice to all parties concerned and after written consent to the court’s jurisdiction, the order now sought to be vacated was entered. It is now claimed that such order was made by the judge under the belief that all parties had consented to the order being made. But the answér to this contention is that, when application was subsequently made to vacate, he refused to do so, and the order made stands.

After consideration, we find no error was committed in making the order, and, in pursuance of it, the appellee trust company has been paid the complained of interest on the mortgage involved and has paid the same to the cestui que trustents, who are not parties to this proceeding which seeks to have the interest paid returned. So viewing the situation, the decree of distribution made by the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks to vacate an order of distribution made by the court below in an equity receivership. After notice to all parties concerned and after written consent to the court’s jurisdiction, the order now sought to be vacated was entered. It is now claimed that such order was made by the judge under the belief that all parties had consented to the order being made. But the answér to this contention is that, when application was subsequently made to vacate, he refused to do so, and the order made stands.

After consideration, we find no error was committed in making the order, and, in pursuance of it, the appellee trust company has been paid the complained of interest on the mortgage involved and has paid the same to the cestui que trustents, who are not parties to this proceeding which seeks to have the interest paid returned. So viewing the situation, the decree of distribution made by the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F.2d 1018, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leon-wiesen-bldg-loan-assn-v-real-estate-land-title-trust-co-ca3-1935.