Chapman v. Atlantic Trust Co.
Citations
- 119 F. 257
- 56 C.C.A. 61
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664
Syllabus
<p>L Circuit Court or Appeals—Jurisdiction—Jurisdictional Questions.</p> <p>An order entered by a circuit court on the coming in of the final report of a receiver appointed by-it in a foreclosure suit, denying the petition of the receiver, praying for a settlement of his accounts, and to have certain costs and expenses of the receivership adjudged against the complainant because of the insufficiency of the proceeds of the mortgaged property to pay the same, does not involve any question of jurisdiction, and an appeal therefrom lies to the circuit court of appeals, although such order was based on the ground that the court was without authority to require complainant to pay such costs and expenses.</p> <p>2. Appealable Orders—Finality.</p> <p>Such an order, which involved a refusal by the court to settle the receiver’s accounts, which had been left open for future adjustment by the decree confirming the sale of the mortgaged property, was final, and the receiver was entitled to appeal therefrom.</p> <p>8. Receivers—Costs or Receivership—Power to Adjudge against Complainant.</p> <p>Where the costs and expenses of the management of mortgaged property by a receiver, authorized by the court, exceed the proceeds of the property when sold, together with its earnings, and the court has expressly retained jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties until the final settlement of the receiver’s accounts, it has power on such settlement to render judgment for the deficiency against the complainant, at whose instance the receiver was appointed and continued, and the expenses were incurred.</p> <p>¶ 1. Jurisdiction of circuit court of appeals, see notes to Lan Ow Bew v. U. S., 1 C. C. A. 6; Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 475.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a conversion claim was futile where the plaintiff did not specifically identify the funds that were subject to conversion
- compelling discovery responses from all 110 randomly-selected opt-in plaintiffs, which consisted of non-responsive plaintiffs from both an initial group and supplemental sample group
- “The Supreme Court has defined ‘substantially justified’ to mean ‘justified in the substance or the main’—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” (quoting United States v. $19,047.00 in U.S. Currency, 95 F.3d 248, 251 (2d Cir. 1996))
- “The Su- preme Court has defined ‘substantially justified’ to mean ‘justified in the substance or the main’—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” (quoting United States v. $19,047.00 in U.S. Cur- rency, 95 F.3d 248, 251 (2d Cir. 1996))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ross
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.