Opinion ID: 1550804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Findings of the Court

Text: Appellants' entire argument on their Tenth point is set forth in their brief as follows: The findings were signed by the Court February 27, 1939. Thereafter on March 11, 1939, the Court signed the interlocutory decree. The decree erroneously contained additional findings not brought up on motion pursuant to Rule 52(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. No reference is made as to what findings are complained of, nor as to whether or not they were necessary to support the decision. In this situation we do not consider this portion of appellants' Tenth point. Argument is also contained to the effect that it was error for the decree to order the District to deposit funds for the consummation of the plan. The contention is that this is distinctly contrary to the terms of Section 83 prohibiting interference with fiscal affairs. The decree to be good at all should have been permissive only. We hold that this is not a matter of which the bondholders can complain. The District has not objected to the terms of the decree, and we will not interfere with the confirmation of the plan upon an alleged infringement of rights of the District of which it does not complain. The decree of the District Court is affirmed.