KAMMERER V. KROEGER, 299 U. S. 302 (1936)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 299 U. S. 302 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Kammerer v. Kroeger, 299 U.S. 302 (1936)

Kammerer v. Kroeger

No. 522

Motion to dismiss distributed November 28, 1936

Decided December 21, 1936*

299 U.S. 302



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. chanrobles.com-red

Page 299 U. S. 303


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 chanrobles.com-red

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.


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.


ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman