U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1915

Hall v. Reynolds

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided May 24, 1915 · Eber, Reed

224 F. 103; 139 C.C.A. 659; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1858

Counsel

Claud D. Hall, of St. Louis, Mo., in pro. per. ,, W. C. Marshall and W. W. Henderson, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent King., Stern & Haberman and Eugene H. Angert, all of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Reynolds.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Morse & Tyson v. Irving-Pitt Mfg. 6. Co. (8th Cir. 1927)
In re Schulte-United (8th Cir. 1932)
Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Carter (8th Cir. 1932)
Irving Trust Co. of New York v. Nelson (8th Cir. 1932)
Swift & Co. v. Licklider (4th Cir. 1925)
Gadd v. Dawson (8th Cir. 1923)
Mohler v. Norris (8th Cir. 1923)
Barnitt v. Maxwell (3d Cir. 1918)
WM. R. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Brooks (8th Cir. 1917)
Hunter, Walton & Co. v. J. G. Cherry Co. (8th Cir. 1917)
Olmsted-Stevenson Co. v. Miller (9th Cir. 1916)
Hall v. Reynolds (8th Cir. 1916)
Doyle v. Ponsford (8th Cir. 1943)

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

PER CURIAM.

[1] It is the settled rule of this court, based upon decisions of the Supreme Court, that in a petition to revise, under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, the power of the appellate court is limited to questions of law only, and it cannot review findings of facts made by the District Court. In re Rosser, 101 Fed. 562, 41 C. C. A. 497; In re Baum, 169 Fed. 410, 94 C. C. A. 632; In re Frank, 182 Fed. 794, 105 C. C. A. 226; Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v. Alles, 197 Fed. 274, 116 C. C. A. 636.

[2] As the only questions involved in this proceeding are questions of fact, whether the allowance made was a reasonable compensation *104for the services rendered, and whether the services rendered by the two attorneys were of such a nature that the allowance to them should be apportioned by the court, there are no questions of law for this court to revise. .

The petition is denied.

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