Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.

228 F. 122, 142 C.C.A. 528, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1998
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 216 F. 458
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided October 8, 1915·No. No. 317·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In controversies between the receiver and third parties as to indebtedness and the amount of it, if any, the receiver represents general creditors. All outstanding questions of exoneration in favor of one fund out of another and claims of priorities of creditors should be disposed of upon the final accounting when all parties are before the District Court. The motion made on behalf of tort creditors to resettle the mandate is denied.

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

Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 228 F. 122, 142 C.C.A. 528, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1998 (2d Cir. 1915).

228 F. 122 (Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.