Case ID: f_168/html/1021-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

METROPOLITAN TRUST CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    March 3, 1909.)
    No. 881.
    Cross-Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Carl Taylor and James Byrne (L. L. Lewis and R. B. Davis, on the brief), for Metropolitan Trust Co. of City of New York.
    D. G. O’Flaherty (O’Flaherty & Fulton, on the brief), for Frank E. Howe and others.
    Henry W. Anderson (Thompson, Vanderpoel & Freedman and Munford, Hunton, Williams & Anderson, on the brief), for Bowling Green Trust Co.
    John Pickrell, for Equitable Trust Co. of New York.
    Arthur H. Van Brunt (Hill Carter and Joline, Larkin & Rathborne, on the brief), for Central Trust Co. of New York.
    Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from was entered by the court below under circumstances that fully justified the judicial discretion then exorcised in directing a sale of the property involved in this litigation, and in our opinion due regard for the conflicting interests of the parties has been ■observed, and the rights of all have been fully protected. The assignments of error in the cross-appeal taken by the Central Trust Company of New York and the Bowling Green Trust Company, Trustee, are without merit, as the reservations complained of in the decree of sale of October 24, 1908, are incidental and necessary to an order of sale in advance of the ascertainment of liens and the determination of the rights of the parties concerning the questions involved. The appellants in the cross-appeal, wishing a sale of the property, could only secure it by the court first passing upon such matters or reserving the same. A sale being in the interest of all parties, it was entirely proper to ■ reserve such questions for the future consideration and decree of the court. Affirmed.