Sprague v. Picher
| Decision Date | 18 April 1938 |
| Citation | 23 F. Supp. 59 |
| Parties | SPRAGUE et al. v. PICHER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Harvey D. Eaton, of Waterville, Me., for petitioner.
F. Harold Dubord, of Waterville, Me., for receiver.
A petition has been filed by counsel for the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit asking this court to order their counsel fees and expenses, in addition to the taxable costs, to be paid by the defendant, receiver of a national bank.
The action was brought to establish a priority claim on certain bonds in the hands of the receiver. It was found by the court that the plaintiffs, in common with others in the same situation, were entitled to an equitable lien on the bonds; and, as they had been sold and the funds in the hands of the receiver augmented by the proceeds, the lien was extended to the proceeds, and, by final decree filed June 6, 1936, it was ordered that the receiver "pay to the plaintiffs $3649.65, with interest from July 30, 1935," and that the receiver "pay plaintiffs their taxable costs; and that execution issue accordingly."
The defendant appealed, and after a hearing and a rehearing in the Circuit Court of Appeals the decree of this court was, on June 1, 1937, "affirmed with costs," Ticonic Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 1 Cir., 90 F.2d 641, whereupon, a writ of certiorari having been granted by the Supreme Court, 58 S.Ct. 55, 82 L.Ed. ___, that court on April 11, 1938, filed its mandate with this court to the effect "that the decree of the said United States Circuit Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs."
The petition for allowance of counsel fees and expenses was filed in this court on February 19, 1938.
Without intimating an opinion that, in a case like this, against the receiver of a national bank, this court has authority to order payment of counsel fees or any expenses incurred by a plaintiff in addition to the taxable costs, or that the circumstances here would justify such an order in any event, I think the petition must be denied for the obvious reason that the status of the case in this court is not that of a pending case, and this court had no authority to grant the petition. Since final judgment and appeal therefrom, the case has been pending in the other courts, and this court has had no further function to perform other than to carry out the mandate of the Supreme Court when received. The mandate from the Supreme Court simply had the effect of directing this court to carry out the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in turn, simply, in effect, required this court to execute its original final decree by issuing its execution for a certain sum of money with costs of both courts. To issue the execution of this court for those sums is the limit of its power and authority. It has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank
...Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which affirmed, 99 F.2d 583, a decree of the District Court for the District of Maine, Sprague v. Picher, 23 F.Supp. 59, denying a petition for the allowance of counsel fees and expenses over and above the regular taxable costs. Certiorari was granted,......
-
Baird v. Bellotti
...affirmance of the judgment. See 307 U.S., at 163, 59 S.Ct. at 778. See, also, the decision below, cited by the Court, Sprague v. Picher, D.Me., 1938, 23 F.Supp. 59. Next, Baird says that in October, 1979 there were questions of law pending before the Supreme Court which, if decided against ......
-
Lack v. Western Loan & Building Co.
...531, 82 L.Ed. 755; Id., 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 679. 2 See Ticonic Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 303 U.S. 406, 58 S.Ct. 612, 82 L.Ed. 926; Sprague v. Picher, D.C. Maine, 23 F.Supp. 59; Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 1 Cir., 99 F.2d 583. 3 See Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 292 U.S. 151, 54 S.Ct. 658,......
-
Summerville v. North Platte Val. Weather Control Dist.
...been entered. The court said: 'Without considering the historic authority of a court of equity in such matters, the District Court [Sprague v. Picher, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 59] deemed itself powerless because foreclosed by the mandate in Ticonic Bank v. Sprague, supra [303 U.S. 406, 58 S.Ct. 612......