The Bethlehem

E.D. Pennsylvania

The Bethlehem

298 F. 190, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1624

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in The Bethlehem. Read the opinion of the Court — 286 F. 400 →

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided April 9, 1924·No. Nos. 151 and 152 of 1920 and 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 35, 51, 90, and 110 of 1921·Published

Opinion

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The exceptions of the United States as mortgagee raise the same questions as is the case of In re 'Steamship Northern Wave, 298 Fed. 188, and the facts are substantially identical. For the reasons set out in the opinion in that case, the exceptions are overruled, the report of the commissioner confirmed, and distribution of the fund awarded in accordance with his report.

An appropriate decree may be presented.

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

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The exceptions of the United States as mortgagee raise the same questions as is the case of In re 'Steamship Northern Wave, 298 Fed. 188, and the facts are substantially identical. For the reasons set out in the opinion in that case, the exceptions are overruled, the report of the commissioner confirmed, and distribution of the fund awarded in accordance with his report.

An appropriate decree may be presented.

The Bethlehem, 298 F. 190, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1624 (E.D. Pa. 1924).

Pincite

298 F. 190 (The Bethlehem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related