McElhenny v. First Nat. Bank of Ashland
This text of 16 F. Cas. 71 (McElhenny v. First Nat. Bank of Ashland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
now called upon George R. Kaercher and Charles M. Swain, contra.
These costs should be paid by the complainant, as it was upon their application that the master was appointed, and he discovered nothing more than what the examiner previously appointed by the comptroller of the currency had already reported. If any of the defendants are to be charged with the costs it should be Torrey and Gorrell, whose acts in the matter made the investigation necessary. The comptroller of the currency has sole jurisdiction of the matter, and when a receiver had been appointed by him, the jurisdiction of the court ceased.
Do you admit the propriety of the amount of the charge ?
Tes, but we are not bound to pay it
Were not these services beneficial to the operation in enabling the receiver to get in the assets with greater ease? Did not the bank directly benefit by them?
We admit that. But this court has no jurisdiction. The compensation is wholly within the receiver’s discretion, since his appointment by the executive of the government.
Eo die. Rule absolute.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 F. Cas. 71, 7 W.N.C. 115, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelhenny-v-first-nat-bank-of-ashland-circtedpa-1879.