TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Broderick v. Lamont

In re BOOKS BRODERICK, Superintendent of Banks v. LAMONT

Broderick v. Lamont, 72 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1934)
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
July 9, 1934
Docket
No. 472
Citations
72 F.2d 3631934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4552

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying a motion to vacate a subpoena duces teeum issued out of the District Court, directing the appellant, the superintendent of banks of the state of New York, to produce before a referee in bankruptcy “certain write-ups and records on examinations of loans of the Orange County Trust Company” to the bankrupts. The purpose of the subpoena was to compel the superintendent of banks to produce a report made to him by his examiner or special representative after examination of the records of the Orange County Trust Company. The trustees in bankruptcy believed that in this way they could get information of the date when the bank received from the bankrupts a certain contract affecting their real estate; the validity of the bank’s claims might depend upon this date. It did not appear that the trustees meant to offer in evidence the examiner’s report; its presence might be wished only to refresh the recollection of the bank examiner when called before the referee. Section 41 of the Banking Law (Consol. Laws, c. 2) of the state of New York provides that the reports of examiners and special agents of the superintendent shall not be made public unless in his judgment justice or the public advantage will be served by their publication. Believing that this.statute protected him from a subpoena to compel Mm to fetch the record before the referee, the superintendent moved to vacate the subpoena. He appealed from the order denying this motion without obtaining preliminary leave from this court. The merits of the controversy we cannot consider. The subpoena was issued in the bankruptcy, proceedings; the ■order denying the motion to vacate it was likewise in those proceedings. No appeal ■can be taken without leave of this court obtained under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 47(b). As none was asked and as the time has now expired in which it could be granted, the appeal must be dismissed. While we have been unable to find any decision upon the point, upon principle there appears to be no doubt. Whether in any case we should review such an order before. some effort was made to enforce it we need not say.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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