Robertson v. Wilkinson
| Decision Date | 19 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4703.,4703. |
| Citation | 10 F.2d 311 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. WILKINSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W. E. Spell, of Waco, Tex., and E. B. Robertson, of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
Stanley Boykin, of Fort Worth, Tex. (Geo. M. Conner, Capps, Cantey, Hanger & Short and Boykin & Ray, all of Fort Worth, Tex., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
On December 18, 1923, the District Court in an equity suit of W. W. Wilkinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Walker Grain Company, Bankrupt, v. J. L. Walker, entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant therein, for $19,000, with interest from November 2, 1918. Walker appealed from that decree to this court, and filed in the District Court a supersedeas bond for $26,000, on which L. P. Robertson was a surety. In that case the trustee prosecuted a cross-appeal. On that appeal and cross-appeal the decree of the District Court was increased by this court to $51,500, with interest from November 2, 1918, and, as so modified, the decree of the District Court was affirmed. 3 F.(2d) 867.
Walker then made application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied. Upon the going down of the mandate of this court, the District Court entered another decree for $51,500, with interest, but did not enter a decree against the sureties on the supersedeas bond. Thereupon the trustee applied for, and obtained, a rule against Robertson as surety on the supersedeas bond to show cause why judgment should not be entered against him upon his bond. Robertson answered, and objected to judgment being entered, on the grounds that, upon the return of the mandate of this court, no further action by the District Court was authorized, that, this court having entered judgment against Walker, the District Court was without authority to enter any further decree, and that the jurisdiction of both this court and the District Court had been completely exhausted. Upon consideration of the rule to show cause, and answer thereto, the District Court entered a decree against Robertson for $26,000, the amount of the supersedeas bond, with interest from the date of the decree.
This appeal is taken by Robertson from the last-mentioned decree, and the grounds relied upon are the same as those stated in his answer to the rule to show cause. In the ordinary course, the present appeal would not be reached by us for consideration until the next term of court, to be held at Fort Worth in November, 1926. The trustee in bankruptcy, appellee in this proceeding, has caused the record to be printed, and has filed a motion to dismiss or affirm,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfeffer v. Meissner
...who were not parties to it. We are cited to Federal Court precedent for our right to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Robertson v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 311. We doubt our authority to sustain the motion on the grounds indicated, especially as against Cynthia and Elna Pfeffer. See R......
-
Colorado Radio Corp. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COM'N., 7582.
...Company v. Donat, 239 U.S. 50, 36 S.Ct. 4, 60 L.Ed. 139; Sancho, Treasurer, v. Acevedo, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 331. 7 Robertson v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 10 F. 2d 311, 312. ...
-
Ginsburg v. American Bar Association
...1946, 157 F.2d 530; Dakin v. United States, 4 Cir., 1939, 105 F.2d 150; Brown v. Carver, 2 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 673; Robertson v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 1925, 10 F.2d 311. The rulings and orders appealed from Affirmed. ...