Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | Docket 21252.,No. 213,213 |
| Parties | PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION et al. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for Prudence-Bonds Corporation.
Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for George E. Eddy.
Irving L. Schanzer, of New York City, for Prudence Realization Corporation.
Maclay, Lyeth & Williams, of New York City (J. M. Richardson Lyeth, of New York City, of counsel), for President and Directors of the Manhattan Co.
Geo. C. Wildermuth, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for debtor.
Before CHASE, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
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 is 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler Grp. Partners, LLC v. Madera
...advice, ignoring their own judgment and experience. See In re Prudence-Bonds Corp., 76 F. Supp. 643, 647 (E.D.N.Y. 1948), aff'd, 174 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1949) (concluding that, without the privilege, "the experience in management and best judgment by [the trustee] is put aside ... which, in t......
-
Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company
...F.2d 142 (6 Cir. 1959); Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, 232 F.2d 897 (9 Cir. 1956); Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp., 174 F.2d 288 (2 Cir. 1949); Harris v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 139 F.2d 571 (2 Cir. 1943); 6 Moore, Federal Practice 1309 In ......
-
Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 84-1133
...p 53.05 (2d ed. 1984) (issues of costs generally inappropriate for referral to a special master); Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp., 174 F.2d 288, 289 (2d Cir.1949) (same). Even if the reference to the magistrate in this case was made with the consent of both parties (on wh......
-
De La Rama SS Co. v. United States
...992; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corp., 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 609, and cases cited at 611; Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp., 2 Cir., 174 F.2d 288. The same principle is held to apply in admiralty, at least to the initial and policy-settling adjudications of a......