Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.

Second Circuit

Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.

174 F.2d 288, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1949

DocketNo. 213, Docket 21252

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 174 F.2d 288 (Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp., 174 F.2d 288, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2193 (2d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge

After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master’s report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master’s recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.

The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers’ fees or the like. But the sole issue [289]*289is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.

We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to- a special master. See F.R. 53(b) ; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 609.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge

After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master’s report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master’s recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.

The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers’ fees or the like. But the sole issue [289]*289is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.

We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to- a special master. See F.R. 53(b) ; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 609.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 288, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudence-bonds-corp-v-prudence-realization-corp-ca2-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack