Case Name: PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION et al. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-04-29
Citations: 174 F.2d 288
Docket Number: No. 213, Docket 21252
Parties: PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION et al. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION et al. v. PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION et al.
No. 213, Docket 21252.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
April 29, 1949.
See also 76 F.Supp. 643.
Charles M. McCarty, of New York City, for Prudence-Bonds Corporation.
Samuel Silbiger, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for George E. Eddy.
Irving L. Schanzer, of New York City, for Prudence Realization Corporation.
Maclay, Lyeth & Williams, of New York City (J. M. Richardson Lyeth, of New York City, of counsel), for President and Directors of the Manhattan Co.
Geo. C. Wildermuth, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for debtor.
Before CHASE, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FRANK, Circuit Judge
After the coming down of our mandate in Eddy v. Prudence Bonds Corporation, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 157, the district court, on June 21, 1948, ordered that appellant, Eddy, recover the costs, in the amount of $1,894.-25, against Prudence Realization Corporation and Bank of Manhattan. Thereafter, on July 7, 1948, the district court resettled that order and referred the matter of costs to a special master. The court then, over exceptions, having approved the master's report, on November 18, 1948, made an order adopting the master's recommendations, by which it ordered that Eddy recover the costs from Prudence-Bonds Corporation. From this order, Prudence-Bonds Corporation and Eddy have appealed.
The parties have argued at length as if the problem here related to administration expenses, such as allowances for lawyers' fees or the like. But the sole issue is one of apportionment of costs, which is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district judge. We see no abuse of discretion justifying our interference.
We take this occasion to express our disapproval of the reference to- a special master. See F.R. 53(b) ; Newman & Bisco v. Realty Associates Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 609.
Affirmed.