SHULMAN ET AL.
v.
WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a bankruptcy reorganization proceeding, the Supreme Court held that a claim for unpaid legal fees awarded by a state court in a prior foreclosure suit was properly disallowed as an administrative matter within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, and that an appeal of the disallowance could be taken only at the discretion of the appellate court under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, not as a matter of right under sections 25a or 24a.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
In a proceeding under § 77 B of the Bankruptcy Act for the reorganization of the Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Company, petitioners filed a claim for $1750. The basis of the claim was a balance alleged to be due pursuant to an allowance of $2250 by a decree of the state court in a foreclosure suit antedating the proceedings in the bankruptcy court. That allowance was stated to be for legal services rendered by petitioners and the amount was “to be paid in due course of administration.” Of this amount petitioners received $500 under a later order of the state court, leaving $1750 unpaid. Upon the confirmation of the plan of reorganization, the District Court reserved jurisdiction to pass upon the petitioners’ claim at the time of the allowance of fees and expenses; and, on the subsequent hearing of the application for such allowances to be charged as costs of administration, the claim was disallowed. An appeal from the order, not having been allowed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. 86 F. (2d) 898. Certiorari was granted March 1, 1937.
Petitioners urge that the appeal should have been entertained under § 25a of the Bankruptcy Act as an appeal from a judgment rejecting a claim of over $500, or under § 24a as an appeal from a determination of a controversy arising in bankruptcy proceedings. Neither contention is sound. The allowance by the state court for legal services fixed an amount but without direction to pay, and the allowance remained subject to the supervising control of the court until payment was directed. Compare People v. Illinois State Bank, 312 Ill. 613, 616; 144 N. E. 327; Hume v. Myers, 242 Fed. 827, 830. There was no finality of action in this respect prior to the proceeding in the bankruptcy court and the allowance was a purely administrative matter upon which the latter court was entitled to pass. The record shows that petitioners’ claim was pressed, heard and determined as one belonging in that category.
The case of Duparquet Co. v. Evans, 297 U. S. 216, is not in point. There is no question here as to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the proceeding for reorganization. The order was made in the exercise of the general jurisdiction conferred by § 77 B (a) which embraced the authority to pass upon fees and expenses incident to administration, including claims such as the present one for legal services rendered in the prior suit in the state court. Compare Gross v. Irving Trust Co., 289 U. S. 342, 345.
Appeal could be taken only under § 24b, in the discretion of the appellate court. See Wingert v. Smead, 70 F. (2d) 351; In re New York Investors, Inc., 79 F. (2d) 179; Meyer v. Kenmore Hotel Co., 297 U. S. 160, 166. The order of the Circuit Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Dickinson Indus. Site, Inc. v. Cowan, 309 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1940)…ided that “appeals from orders fixing such allowances may be taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals independently of other appeals in the proceeding and shall be heard summarily.” And it was held by this Court in Shulman v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co., 301 U. S. 172, that those appeals could not be had as a matter of right but only in the discretion of the appellate court as provided in former § 24 (b). That was the way the matter stood when § 250 was drafted. The history of that section1 shows that it was de…
-
Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Prudence Sec. Advisory Grp., 311 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1941)…al requirement, and that the practice followed in this case cannot be reduced to a mere procedural irregularity. Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 609, 612-13; Old Nick Williams Co. v. United States, 215 U. S. 541; Shulman v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co., 301 U. S. 172. However, when petitioners filed their notices of appeal in the -district court the proper procedure was not' settled, and petitioners were misled by the decision of the court below in London v. O’Dougherty, 102 F. 2d 524. In these unique circumstan…1 / 2
-
State of Cal. v. Fred S. Renauld & Co., 179 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1950)…ment, p. 123. This appeal involves less than $500. See In re Harris, 9 Cir., 1935, 78 F. 2d 849; England v. Ducasse, 9 Cir., 1939, 104 F. 2d 760; In re Henry R. Dabney Oil Co., 9 Cir., 1940, 110 F. 2d 652; Shulman v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co., 1937, 301 U.S. 172, 57 S.Ct. 680, 81 L.Ed. 986. Appellant did not secure or petition for the required leave to appeal. Until Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group, 1941, 311 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 331, 85 L.Ed. 364, the tenor of U. S. Supreme…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gross v. Irving Tr. Co. in Bankr., 289 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1933)
- Duparquet Huot & Moneuse Co. v. Evans, 297 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1936)
- Meyer v. Kenmore Granville Hotel Co., 297 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1936)
- In re N.Y. Invs. v. Endelman, 79 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1935)
- Wingert v. Smead, 70 F.2d 351 (4th Cir. 1934)
- In re Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co. v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co., 86 F.2d 898 (7th Cir. 1936)