Opinion
Hearing Granted by Supreme Court Jan. 12, 1939.
Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Emmet H. Wilson, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the liquidation of the Pacific Coast Building–Loan Association, of Los Angeles, wherein Justus F. Craemer, successor to Louis C. Drapeau as Building and Loan Commissioner of the State of California, was a petitioner, and wherein Clarice B. Holmes and others filed claims, and proceeding in the matter of the liquidation of the Pacific Coast Building–Loan Association, of Los Angeles, California, wherein Justus F. Craemer, successor to Louis C. Drapeau as Building and Loan Commissioner of the State of California, was a petitioner, and H.P. Drake and others were claimants. From an adverse order, the claimants appeal.
Affirmed COUNSEL
John C. Campbell and O.A. Ehlers, both of Los Angeles, for appellants Clarice B. Holmes, Paul H. Ehlers and Flora A. Ehlers et al.
H.L. Carnahan, of Los Angeles, for appellants H.P. Drake et al.
James C. Ingebretsen and Robert Lee Collins, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.
OPINION
WOOD, Justice.
The affairs of the Pacific Coast Building-Loan Association have been in process of liquidation since July 11, 1932, the date on which the superior court approved of the action of the Building and Loan Commissioner in taking over the assets of the association. The association had issued a large number of membership shares and a large number of investment certificates. The commissioner paid the principal due to the holders of investment certificates but did not pay interest thereon during the period of liquidation and up to the date of the payment of the principal. The commissioner applied to the court for directions on the question whether interest should be paid to the holders of investment certificates before the holders of membership shares should receive payments claimed to be due to them as holders of such shares. The court issued an order to show cause against all interested parties, in response to which certain holders of membership shares, appellants in the above-entitled actions, on their own behalf and on behalf of others in like situations, sought and obtained from the superior court an order directing the commissioner to pay no interest to the holders of investment certificates during the period of liquidation while the principal of the claims of membership shareholders remained unpaid. The appellants thereupon petitioned the superior court to make an order for an allowance of attorneys’ fees and costs from the proceeds of the liquidation payable to holders of the membership shares. These appeals are prosecuted from an order denying the petitions.
An appeal was also taken by holders of investment certificates from the above-mentioned order of the superior court by which interest was denied to them during the period of liquidation. We have this day reversed the order of the superior court by which interest was denied to the holders of investment certificates. Matter of Pacific Coast Building-Loan Ass’n, __ Cal.App. __, 84 P.2d 260. Since the petitions of appellants are predicated upon their success in securing benefits for the holders of membership shares and since on the other appeal the order of the superior court was reversed, it follows that appellants are not entitled to an order allowing attorneys’ fees.
The order is affirmed.
I concur: McCOMB, J.
CRAIL, P.J., did not participate.