Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle v. Carolina Scenic Stages
Decision Date | 07 March 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 7358.,7358. |
Citation | 242 F.2d 259 |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Parties | CARLISLE, BROWN & CARLISLE, Attorneys at Law, Petitioning Claimants, Appellants. v. CAROLINA SCENIC STAGES, Respondent, Appellee. In the Matter of CAROLINA SCENIC STAGES, Debtor. |
Howard Carlisle Bean, Spartanburg, S. C. (Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle, Spartanburg, S. C., on the brief), for appellants.
Thomas A. Wofford, Greenville, S. C. (J. Nat Hamrick, Rutherfordton, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and GILLIAM, District Judge.
This appeal was taken by petitioners from an order of the District Judge, which disallowed their claim for a fee of $2,500. The claim was filed in a Chapter 10 Proceeding in Bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and, it is alleged, covers services performed while the case was being handled by a State Court Receiver prior to the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, which services, it is also alleged, benefited all the creditors of the defendant, Carolina Scenic Stages.
It should be noted at the outset that the matter was one within the sound judicial discretion of the trial Court and under the cases its decree should not be set aside unless it appears that there was an abuse of that discretion. This Court had the question before it in the somewhat similar case of Jett v. Merchants and Planters Bank, 228 F.2d 156. It is stated in the opinion at page 158:
"This was a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court." And at page 159: "Since we think there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Court in proctor\'s petition for a fee, the decree of the District Court is affirmed."
To properly focus the question of whether the District Court abused its discretion we must look to the course of the litigation which began in a South Carolina State Court, was then transferred to the jurisdiction of the United States Court under a Chapter 11 Proceeding in Bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq., then returned to the State's jurisdiction, and finally came back to the jurisdiction of the United States Court by way of a Chapter 10 Proceeding in Bankruptcy. This narration of the course of the litigation leading to the filing of the claim for the fee is found in appellants' brief:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maier Brewing Company v. Fleischmann Distilling Corp.
...authority when no common fund was created. Whittier v. Emmet, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 191, 281 F.2d 24; Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle v. Carolina Scenic Stages, 4 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 259. It has been relied upon in cases involving many small claims, such that, individually they would not justi......
-
LOCAL NO. 149 IU, UA, A. & AIW v. American Brake Shoe Co.
...90 L.Ed. 1447, 1453 (1946); Gordon v. Woods, 202 F.2d 476 (1 Cir. 1953), rehearing denied 203 F.2d 363; Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle v. Carolina Scenic Stages, 242 F.2d 259 (4 Cir. 1957); Brisacher v. Tracy-Collins Trust Company, 277 F.2d 519 (10 Cir. 1960). 2 In re Swartz, 130 F.2d 229 (7 Ci......
-
Clements v. Jungert
...(La.App.1936); Rankin v. Superior Automobile Ins. Co. of Florence, 237 S.C. 380, 117 S.E.2d 525 (1960); Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle v. Carolina Scenic Stage, 242 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1957). An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by the conduct of the partie......
-
Jecies v. Matsuda
...810 (1965); Rankin v. Superior Automobile Ins. Co. of Florence, 237 S.C. 380, 117 S.E.2d 525 (1960); Carlisle, Brown & Carlisle v. Carolina Scenic Stage, 242 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1957); Lynn v. Agnew, 179 App.Div. 305, 166 N.Y.S. 274 (4th Dept. 1917). However, no particular formalities are ne......