Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Continental Trust Co.

166 F. 597, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5461
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia·Decided August 3, 1908·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on to be further heard upon the interventions of Brown & Randolph, Cobb & Erwin, Goet-chius & Chappell, Tom Eason, Crovatt & Whitfield, E. A. Hawkins, J. B. Geoger, Janes & Hutchens, Neel & Peeples, Thomas F. Walsh, jr., and G. R. Hutchens, and upon the master’s reports thereon and the exceptions thereto, whereupon it is considered that the exceptions are not well taken and are overruled. It is thereupon ordered that the said exceptions be and they are overruled, and the master’s reports he and they are in all respects confirmed; and, it appearing that the services for which the interveners claim the compensation allowed by the master were within the terms and meaning of the order appointing receivers in this cause and entitled to be paid under the said order, it is further ordered that the receivers do pay the amounts, with interest, as allowed and approved in the master’s reports.

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

Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Continental Trust Co., 166 F. 597, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5461 (circtndga 1908).

166 F. 597 (Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Continental Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howard v. United States
161 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Kentucky, 1958)
Burnet v. Livezey
48 F.2d 159 (Fourth Circuit, 1931)
Brown v. Commissioner
22 B.T.A. 581 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1931)
Equitable Fire & Marine Insurance v. Stieffens
153 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1930)
Young v. Commissioner
16 B.T.A. 1428 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Strickland v. Commissioner
16 B.T.A. 419 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Hurst v. Hope
147 S.E. 222 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1929)
Livezey v. Commissioner
15 B.T.A. 806 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Blair v. Mathews
29 F.2d 892 (Fifth Circuit, 1928)