RFC v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group,
Annotate this Case
311 U.S. 579 (1941)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
RFC v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group, 311 U.S. 579 (1941)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group
Argued December 16, 17, 1940
Decided January 6, 1941
311 U.S. 579
1. The proper procedure for taking appeals under § 250 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, from orders making or refusing to make allowances of compensation or reimbursement under Chapter X, is by filing in the Circuit Court of Appeals, within the time prescribed by § 25(a), applications for leave to appeal, not by filing notices of appeal in the District Court. P. 311 U. S. 581.
2. Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that, when an appeal "is permitted by law from a District Court to a Circuit Court of Appeals," it may be taken by filing with the District Court a notice of appeal, is inapplicable to appeals under § 250 of the Bankruptcy Act, which may be had only in the discretion of the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 311 U. S. 581.
3. Although appeals under § 250 must be "taken to" the Circuit Court of Appeals within the time prescribed by § 25(a), it is not required also that they be "allowed" within that time. P. 311 U. S. 582.
4. Ambiguities in statutory language should not be resolved so as to imperil a substantial right which has been granted. P. 311 U. S. 582.
5. Where, subsequent to London v. O'Dougherty, 102 F.2d 524, and prior to Dickinson Industrial Site v. Cowan, 309 U. S. 382, notices of appeals from compensation orders under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act were filed in the District Court, within the appeal period prescribed by § 25(a), although no application for leave to appeal was made to the Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the Circuit Court of Appeals was not without jurisdiction to allow the appeals. Pp. 311 U. S. 580, 582..
111 F.2d 37 reversed.
Certiorari, 310 U.S. 622, to review a judgment dismissing appeals from compensation orders of the bankruptcy court.