Hall v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 24 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 154. |
| Citation | 224 F. 103 |
| Parties | HALL v. REYNOLDS et al. [1] In re LEWIS PUB. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Claud D. Hall, of St. Louis, Mo., in pro. per.
W. C. Marshall and W. W. Henderson, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent King.
Stern & Haberman and Eugene H. Angert, all of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Reynolds.
Before TRIEBER and REED, District Judges.
It is the settled rule of this court, based upon decisions of the Supreme Court, that in a petition to revise, under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, the power of the appellate court is limited to questions of law only, and it cannot review findings of facts made by the District Court. In re Rosser, 101 F. 562, 41 C.C.A. 497; In re Baum, 169 F. 410, 94 C.C.A. 632; In re Frank, 182 F. 794, 105 C.C.A. 226; Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v. Alles, 197 F. 274, 116 C.C.A. 636.
As the only questions involved in this proceeding are questions of fact, whether the allowance made was a reasonable compensation for the services rendered, and whether the services rendered by the two attorneys were of such a nature that the allowance to them should be apportioned by the court, there are no questions of law for this court to revise.
The petition is denied.
---------
Notes:
[1] Rehearing denied July 9, 1915.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Schulte-United
...152; W. J. Davidson & Co. v. Friedman (C. C. A.) 140 F. 853; Yaryan Rosin & Turpentine Co. v. Isaac (C. C. A.) 270 F. 710; Hall v. Reynolds (C. C. A. 8) 224 F. 103; In re Floore (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 113; Banco Commercial De Puerto Rico v. Hunter Benn & Co. (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) It is therefo......
-
Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Carter
...to be drawn from the evidence. In re Lee, 182 F. 579, 105 C. C. A. 117; In re Frank, 182 F. 794, 105 C. C. A. 226; Hall v. Reynolds, 224 F. 103, 139 C. C. A. 659. The question whether the bankrupts had their principal place of business at Cedar Rapids is such a question. There was abundant ......
-
Olmsted-Stevenson Co. v. Miller
...137 F. 840, 70 C.C.A. 338; Steiner v. Marshall, 140 F. 710, 72 C.C.A. 103; In re Roadarmour, 177 F. 379, 100 C.C.A. 611; Hall v. Reynolds, 224 F. 103, 139 C.C.A. 659. this reason the petition to dismiss interposed in this court should perhaps be granted; but in any event we agree with the c......
-
Swift & Co. v. Licklider
...to correct alleged errors therein. In re Lee, 182 F. 579, 105 C. C. A. 117; In re Frank, 182 F. 794, 105 C. C. A. 226; Hall v. Reynolds, 224 F. 103, 139 C. C. A. 659; In re Wood, 248 F. 246, 160 C. C. A. 324; Sauve v. M. L. More Invest. Co., 248 F. 642, 160 C. C. A. 542; Davis v. Anderson-T......