TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McGrath Attorney General v. Hunt, Hill & Betts

McGRATH, Attorney General, v. HUNT, HILL & BETTS

McGrath Attorney Gen. v. Hunt, Hill & Betts, 194 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 27, 1952
Docket
No. 22199_1
Judges
Clark, Hand, Per Curiam, Swan
Citations
194 F.2d 5291952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2794

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order in a proceeding under section 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 17. The case was heard upon the petition, answer and supporting affidavits. The order denied the petitioner’s application that the respondent be forthwith directed to pay over $5,000 in compliance with a Vesting Order and Turn Over Directive issued by the petitioner and served upon the respondent. Before reaching the merits of the appeal this court must determine its own jurisdiction. Section 17 gives “a right of appeal from the final order or decree” of the district court as provided in sections 128 and 238 of the Act of March 3. 1911. These sections now appear as sections 129H1293 of Title 28. It is clear from the district court’s opinion that the order on appeal is not a final order.

1

Denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order. In re Finkelstein, 2 Cir., 102 F.2d 688, 689 ; Marcus Breier Sons v. Marvlo Fabrics, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 29 ; Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp., 3 Cir., 181 F.2d 160, 161 . Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. The court concluded its opinion as follows: “Here the respondent has adequately raised the issues by its answer to .the petition. The government has not filed any affidavits in reply to the answering affidavits of the respondent. It may do so. But even if the main allegations of the special defenses are controverted by the government, an issue of fact will be presented which should be tried by this court. Under the- circumstances no summary order will be granted under Section 17 at this time.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 11958: 11967: 11968: 119532026peak 1953 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Thompson433 P.2d 795 (Mont. 1967)
  2. Smith v. Hamilton265 P.2d 214 (Nev. 1953)
  3. Brown v. Midland National Bank435 P.2d 878 (Mont. 1968)
  4. J. Franklin Spruill v. Theodore M. Cage262 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1958)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. Midland National Bank435 P.2d 878 (Mont. 1968)
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Thompson433 P.2d 795 (Mont. 1967)
  3. J. Franklin Spruill v. Theodore M. Cage262 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1958)
  4. Smith v. Hamilton265 P.2d 214 (Nev. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Morgenstern Chem. Co. v. Schering Corp., 181 F.2d 160 (3d Cir. 1950) 37
Marcus Breier Sons, Inc. v. Marvlo Fabrics, Inc., 173 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1949) 24
Goldstein v. S. Blechman & Sons, Inc., 102 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1939) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list