TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

David Haar v. Orrell Oseland, Trustee

David HAAR, Respondent-Appellant, v. Orrell OSELAND, Trustee, Petitioner-Appellee

Haar v. Orrell Oseland, 265 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 2, 1959
Docket
No. 25173_1
Judges
Medina, Hincks, Mathes
Citations
265 F.2d 2181959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4893

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

On February 4, 1956, officers of the Knickerbocker Leather & Novelty Co. Inc., now the bankrupt, consulted the appellant, an attorney, about its financial difficulties. A retainer of $2,500 was agreed upon. The attorney prepared and, on February 8, filed a petition for an arrangement, under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. On his retainer, he received a check for $1,000 and an assignment of accounts receivable which yielded $1,500. In May, after extensive efforts to consummate an arrangement, the contemplated arrangement failed and bankruptcy ensued. The trustee in bankruptcy petitioned under § 60, sub. d of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96 , sub. d, for a determination of the reasonable value of the appellant’s services rendered prior to February 8 and for an order for the recovery of the excess for the benefit of the estate. Referee Stephenson allowed the appellant $200 for his pre-bankruptcy services (which was increased to $500 by the district court) and in a well-considered opinion, confirmed on review below, ordered recovery of the balance for the benefit of the estate. The order, of course, did not purport to preclude an application for an allowance as an expense of the administration of the estate.

Affirmed on the opinions below.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11969: 11972: 11973: 11975: 11980: 11981: 11984: 11987: 119652026peak 1965 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list