Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co.

Second Circuit

Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co.

209 F. 206, 126 C.C.A. 300, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1779

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 F. 206 (Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co.) 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

Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co., 209 F. 206, 126 C.C.A. 300, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1779 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to quash a writ of error to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 1913, which order provided that the attachment heretofore granted be vacated unless the plaintiff increase the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500. The plaintiff has failed to increase the security as required and now sues out a writ of error to [207]*207review the order requiring it. The court below, being of the opinion that the existing security was insufficient, was certainly justified in increasing it. Its action was in no sense final, but was purely discretionary, and intended only to give the defendant additional security covering the fees and costs incurred by it subsequent to the order of March 4, 1911. Such an order is not reviewable on writ of error. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L. Ed. 891; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. L. Bucki, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 864, 35 C. C. A. 59.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to quash a writ of error to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 1913, which order provided that the attachment heretofore granted be vacated unless the plaintiff increase the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500. The plaintiff has failed to increase the security as required and now sues out a writ of error to [207]*207review the order requiring it. The court below, being of the opinion that the existing security was insufficient, was certainly justified in increasing it. Its action was in no sense final, but was purely discretionary, and intended only to give the defendant additional security covering the fees and costs incurred by it subsequent to the order of March 4, 1911. Such an order is not reviewable on writ of error. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L. Ed. 891; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. L. Bucki, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 864, 35 C. C. A. 59.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F. 206, 126 C.C.A. 300, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assets-collecting-co-v-barnes-king-development-co-ca2-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack