Babbitt v. Read

240 F. 694, 153 C.C.A. 492, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 1917
DocketNo. 234
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 F. 694 (Babbitt v. Read) 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
Babbitt v. Read, 240 F. 694, 153 C.C.A. 492, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423 (2d Cir. 1917).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Judge Mayer refusing to allow certain creditors of the Randolph-Macon Coal Company, a bankrupt, to intervene as parties and apply for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The case having been instituted and conducted by the trustee in bankruptcy, an officer of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, which is charged with the duty of collecting and distributing 'the bankrupt estate, we think that court alone has jurisdiction to authorize other persons to intervene as parties.

[2] Assuming, however, that the District Court had authority in the premises, we think its refusal to grant the petition was a matter of discretion not appealable. There is no pretense that the trustee in bankruptcy has not honestly and efficiently asserted the petitioners’ claims both in the District Court and in this court. Having been defeated in both courts, the District Judge might very properly refuse to further delay proceedings by authorizing an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. With such an exercise of discretion we have no right to interfere.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

McAvoy v. United States
178 F.2d 353 (Second Circuit, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 F. 694, 153 C.C.A. 492, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babbitt-v-read-ca2-1917.