Republic Supply Co. of California v. Richfield Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7588.,7588. |
| Citation | 74 F.2d 909 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. OF CALIFORNIA v. RICHFIELD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA. CITIES SERVICE CO. v. TOMS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Hill, Morgan & Bledsoe, Benjamin F. Bledsoe, Charles P. McCarthy, Elvon Musick, and Howard Burrell, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Alexander Macdonald and A. Stevens Halsted, Jr., both of Los Angeles, Cal., Colin C. Ives, of New York City, Jefferson P. Chandler, Leo S. Chandler, and Robert B. Murphey, all of Los Angeles, Cal. (Bauer, MacDonald, Schultheis & Pettit, of
Los Angeles, Cal., Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine & Wood, of New York City, and Chandler, Wright & Ward and Call & Murphey, all of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellees.
Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order subsequently entered in the same proceeding in which the appeal in case No. 7587, Republic Supply Co. of Cal. v. Richfield Oil Co. of Cal. (C. C. A.) 74 F.(2d) 907, was taken. The appeal in the case at bar is from an order of the District Court entered May 22, 1934, denying the motion of appellant, Cities Service Company, that the District Court vacate or modify its order theretofore made in said cause on April 23, 1934, and to give to the so-called reorganization committee in said cause certain instructions set forth in said motion.
Pursuant to the order of April 19, 1934, from which the appeal in case No. 7587 was taken, the reorganization committee petitioned the District Court to approve the statement of financial condition of the Richfield Oil Company of California and Pan American Petroleum Company, the letter and notice to be sent to the bondholders, and the advertisement to be published, all of which were attached to the petition. In its order of April 23, 1934, the District Court approved each of these, and it is this order that appellant sought by its motion to have the District Court vacate or modify.
The general rule is that no appeal will lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or modify a judgment, decree, or order. Smith v. U. S. ex rel. Gorlo (C. C. A.) 52 F.(2d) 848; Connor v. Peugh's Lessee, 18 How. 394, 15 L. Ed. 432; In re Gelino's, Inc. (C. C. A.) 51 F.(2d) 875; International Bank v. Securities Corp., 59 App. D. C. 72, 32 F.(2d) 968; Painter v. Union Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 246 F. 240; Willis v. Davis (C. C. A.) 184 F. 889; 3 C. J. p. 521, § 535.
The order of April 23, 1934, was not a final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company
...Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 115 F.2d 406 (9 Cir. 1940) (motion to vacate an order of dismissal). In Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 74 F.2d 909 (9 Cir. 1935) it was "The general rule is that no appeal will lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or modify a judgment......
-
Mohonk Realty Corporation v. Wise Shoe Stores
...93 F.2d 418; Andris v. DuPont Cellophane Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 421; Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749; Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 909. Appellant also makes some claims of lack of notice which might be conceived of as jurisdictional. It is not denied ......
-
Ray v. Bruce.
...7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848, and cases cited; Board of Supervisors v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2 Cir., 80 F.2d 248, 250; Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 909, 910, and cases cited. ‘Whatever hardship or injustice, if any, there may be in the denial of the motion, we have no p......
-
Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
...lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or modify a judgment, decree, or order. Cases cited." Republic Supply Co. of Calif. v. Richfield Oil Co. of Calif., 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 909, 910. See also Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749. In the circumstances, therefore, we have no alter......