TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia

INTERNATIONAL BANK v. SECURITIES CORPORATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Int'l Bank v. Sec. Corp. of Dist. of Columbia, 32 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 6, 1929
Docket
No. 4738
Citations
32 F.2d 96859 App. D.C. 721929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928
Cited by 11

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a general order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of condemnation in a garnishment proceeding.

It is sought to invoke a question of jurisdiction on the statement of the trial justice in a memorandum opinion that he thought section 2 of Law Rule 55 of the Supreme Court of the District to be controlling in this ease. It is insisted that a motion of this sort is not controlled by rule 55, and that therefore the order was without the jurisdiction of the court. The order is a general one, and can be sustained if there was any jurisdiction in the court to make such an order. It is conceded that the court had such jurisdiction. The mere statement in the memorandum opinion may be correct or incorrect, but it can have no effect upon the validity of the order. It may be a ease where the court entered a proper order and gave an improper reason therefor, but with this we are not concerned since appeal will not lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. Dante v. Bagby, 39 App. D. C. 516; Doyle v. District of Columbia, 45 App. D. C. 90.

This furnishes sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal; but it also appears from the record that in another garnishment proceeding on the same judgment against the Merchants’ Bank & Trust Company the judgment was, “fully paid and satisfied by order of plaintiff’s attorneys.” The payment of the judgment leaves the question moot.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1931: 11935: 11939: 11943: 41945: 11947: 21962: 119312026peak 1943 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Antonio Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, and v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc.301 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1962)
  2. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
  3. Price v. Wilson32 A.2d 109 (D.C. 1943)
  4. Ray v. Bruce31 A.2d 693 (D.C. 1943)
  5. State Tax Commission v. United States136 F.2d 903 (10th Cir. 1943)
  6. Consolidated Radio Artists, Inc. v. Washington Section105 F.2d 785 (D.C. Cir. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Antonio Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, and v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc.301 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1962)
  2. Simons v. United States162 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1947)
  3. Brooks v. Trigg51 A.2d 302 (D.C. 1947)
  4. Donovan v. Jeffcott147 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1945)
  5. State Tax Commission v. United States136 F.2d 903 (10th Cir. 1943)
  6. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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