U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1949

Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. Prudence Realization Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided April 29, 1949 · Frank

174 F.2d 288; 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2193 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for Prudence-Bonds Corporation., Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for George E. Eddy., Irving L. Schanzer, of New York City, for Prudence Realization Corporation., Maclay, Lyeth & Williams, of New York City (J. M. Richardson Lyeth, of New York City, of counsel), for President and Directors of the Manhattan Co., Geo. C. Wildermuth, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for debtor.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Murphy v. Gorman (District Court, D. New Mexico 2010)
Henry Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc. (7th Cir. 1985)
Howard Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Company (2d Cir. 1963)
De La Rama S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States. The Dona Aurora (2d Cir. 1953)
Boas Box Co. v. Proper Folding Box Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1971)
Reeves Brothers, Inc., and Cross-Appellee v. U. S. Laminating Corp. And Travis Rauch, and Cross-Appellants (2d Cir. 1969)
Fleischer v. A.A.P. Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1964)
Dill v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. (Mass. 1961)
John Monteiro, Libellant-Appellant v. Sociedad Mar. San Nicolas, S.A. And the S.S. Euryviades, Her Engines, Tackle, Boilers and Appurtenances, Etc. (2d Cir. 1958)
Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc. Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc (2d Cir. 1954)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge

After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master’s report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master’s recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.

The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers’ fees or the like. But the sole issue *289is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.

We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to- a special master. See F.R. 53(b) ; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 609.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.