Alco Film Corp. v. Alco Film Service of Minnesota

Second Circuit

Alco Film Corp. v. Alco Film Service of Minnesota

234 F. 55, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1916

DocketNos. 149, 237

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 F. 55 (Alco Film Corp. v. Alco Film Service of Minnesota) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alco Film Corp. v. Alco Film Service of Minnesota, 234 F. 55, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060 (2d Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this case appeared specially, but not to raise the question of jurisdiction of their persons. Their theory was that they were adverse claimants, and that because they resided in other states, and the films which the court was asked to require them to surrender were in other states, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had no jurisdiction to make any summary order in the premises. No motion was ever made to quash the service of process nor was any exception taken to it, either in the District Court or in this court. Conceding the service of process to have been invalid, the objection was waived.

The orders of Judge Mayer are affirmed, except that the reference to the film known as “Tillie’s Punctured Romance” should be stricken out from the order in the case of the Progressive Investment Company.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this case appeared specially, but not to raise the question of jurisdiction of their persons. Their theory was that they were adverse claimants, and that because they resided in other states, and the films which the court was asked to require them to surrender were in other states, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had no jurisdiction to make any summary order in the premises. No motion was ever made to quash the service of process nor was any exception taken to it, either in the District Court or in this court. Conceding the service of process to have been invalid, the objection was waived.

The orders of Judge Mayer are affirmed, except that the reference to the film known as “Tillie’s Punctured Romance” should be stricken out from the order in the case of the Progressive Investment Company.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F. 55, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alco-film-corp-v-alco-film-service-of-minnesota-ca2-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack