The question whether the Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, in a
proceeding to liquidate a building and loan association, had
jurisdiction under the laws of that State to entertain applications
by shareholders for reimbursement out of the assets of the
association for counsel fees and expenses incurred by them in
litigation which they had successfully conducted for the protection
of the assets in behalf of themselves and the other shareholders
held a question of state practice and remedy not involving
any right under the Federal Constitution.
Appeals from 131 Ohio St. 330, 2 N.E.2d 823, dismissed.
Page 299 U. S. 303
PER CURIAM.
These seven appeals present the same question. Under §§ 687 to
687-23 Gen.Code Ohio, 115 Ohio Laws 3, § 1
et seq.,
effective February 27, 1933, the Superintendent of Building and
Loan Associations of the Ohio took possession of the assets of the
above-mentioned associations, respectively, for the purpose of
liquidation. The superintendent sought authority to borrow money
from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to pay off claims
alleged to be prior to the shareholders' claims against such
associations, and to pledge the assets as security. Appellant
shareholders, on behalf of all the shareholders of the respective
associations, through their counsel, successfully opposed the
superintendent's applications. Thereupon appellants filed
applications for the allowance of their counsel fees and expenses
out of the assets of the associations. The Common Pleas Court of
Montgomery County, on motion of the superintendent, struck these
applications from the files upon the ground that, under the Ohio
statutes, the court did not have jurisdiction to consider or allow
such fees. Motions for new trial and rehearing were overruled. The
Court of Appeals of Montgomery County sustained the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas. Appellants then appealed as of right to the
Supreme Court of Ohio, and that court dismissed the appeals on the
ground that "no debatable constitutional question" was involved.
In re American Loan & Savings Assn., 131 Ohio St. 330,
2 N.E.2d 823.
We find no basis for the contention that, in denying appellants'
claim to be paid their counsel fees and expenses
Page 299 U. S. 304
out of the assets in the hands of the liquidator, upon the
ground that the court was without jurisdiction to make such an
allowance, any right of the appellants under the Federal
Constitution has been infringed. The question is one of state
practice and remedy. The motions to dismiss the appeals are
granted, and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a
substantial federal question.
Iowa Central Ry. Co. v.
Iowa, 160 U. S. 389,
160 U. S. 393;
Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U.
S. 270,
224 U. S.
280-281;
McDonald v. Oregon Navigation Co.,
233 U. S. 665,
233 U. S.
669-670;
Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U.
S. 367,
242 U. S.
369-370;
Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal
Co., 243 U. S. 157,
243 U. S. 166.
Dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
* Together with No. 523,
Wuist et al. v. Kroeger et
al.; No. 524,
Fischer et al. v. Kroeger et al.; No.
525,
Cotterill et al. v. Kroeger et al.; No. 526,
Kelsey et al. v. Kroeger et al.; No. 527,
Kimmel et
al. v. Kroeger et al., and No. 528,
Reichert et al. v.
Kroeger et al. Appeals from the Supreme Court of Ohio.