A-Cos Leasing Corp. v. Ingraham

Fifth Circuit

A-Cos Leasing Corp. v. Ingraham

408 F.2d 492

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1969

DocketNos. 27256, 27257

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 408 F.2d 492 (A-Cos Leasing Corp. v. Ingraham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A-Cos Leasing Corp. v. Ingraham, 408 F.2d 492 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

PER CURIAM:

The petitioners ask this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to vacate his order denying the petitioners relief under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and will issue only in limited and unusual circumstances: “(W)hile a function of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction is to remove obstacles to appeal, it may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure prescribed by the statute.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 1943, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185, 1190. The petitioners here maintain, without citing authority, that an appeal is impossible because no parties opposed the petitions that were dismissed below. The petitioners’ premise is incorrect. In the Matter of Colorado Trust Deed Funds, Inc., 10 Cir. 1962, 311 F.2d 288. The petitions for writ of mandamus are accordingly denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

PER CURIAM:

The petitioners ask this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to vacate his order denying the petitioners relief under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act. The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and will issue only in limited and unusual circumstances: “(W)hile a function of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction is to remove obstacles to appeal, it may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure prescribed by the statute.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 1943, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185, 1190. The petitioners here maintain, without citing authority, that an appeal is impossible because no parties opposed the petitions that were dismissed below. The petitioners’ premise is incorrect. In the Matter of Colorado Trust Deed Funds, Inc., 10 Cir. 1962, 311 F.2d 288. The petitions for writ of mandamus are accordingly denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 F.2d 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-cos-leasing-corp-v-ingraham-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack