Beecher

Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank

Good Law
160 F.2d 294·36 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 37·1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3707
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 1947No. 11499California958 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Denman, J.

This in an appeal from orders made on our mandate in the “former appeals in causes No. 10789, 153 F.2d 987 and No. 10391, 153 F.2d 982 , providing “It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this proceeding be, and hereby is returned to the court below for the prompt compliance with the requirements of Section 75, sub. s for the making of the three year stay order, and if there be none, for the appointment of a conciliation commissioner and referee for his (the farmer’s) and the court’s advice in ‘all matters’ arising under Section 75, sub. s, including, inter alia, any receivership accounting. (August 3, 1945, as amended by order of February 25, 1946). You, Therefore, Are Hereby Commanded that such further proceedings be had in the said cause in accordance with the opinion and decree of this court, and as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States ought to be had.”

Pursuant to such mandate the district court on April 30, 1946, entered two orders : the first an order of reference to Robert F. Murray, Conciliation C unmissioner of Chelan County, for all further proceedings therein, and second, an Oraei on Mandate. The conciliation commissioner was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.