Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/172/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:24:07+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 301 › Shulman v. Wilson-Sheridan Hotel Co.
1. An allowance by a state court for legal services in foreclosure proceedings, "to be paid in due curse of administration," but without any direction to pay, remains subject to the control of that court and becomes subject to the control and revision of the bankruptcy court in subsequent proceedings under § 77B. P. 301 U. S. 173.
2. An order of the bankruptcy court disallowing the fee is not appealable under § 25a of the Bankruptcy Act as from a judgment rejecting a claim, nor under § 24a, as from a determination of a controversy arising in bankruptcy proceedings, but only under § 24b, in the discretion of the appellate court. P. 301 U. S. 173.
Certiorari, 300 U.S. 649, to review an order dismissing the appeal in a case under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act.
court was entitled to pass. The record shows that petitioners' claim was pressed, heard, and determined as one belonging in that category.
The case of Duparquet Co. v. Evans, 297 U. S. 216, is not in point. There is no question here as to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the proceeding for reorganization. The order was made in the exercise of the general jurisdiction conferred by § 77B(a), which embraced the authority to pass upon fees and expenses incident to administration, including claims such as the present one for legal services rendered in the prior suit in the state court. Compare Gross v. Irving Trust Co., 289 U. S. 342, 289 U. S. 345.

References: v. 
 § 77
 § 25
 § 24
 § 24
 § 77
 v. 
 § 77
 v.