Brande v. S. & S. Machinery Co.

Second Circuit

Brande v. S. & S. Machinery Co.

252 F.2d 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1958

DocketNo. 159, Docket 24788

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 F.2d 297 (Brande v. S. & S. Machinery 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

Brande v. S. & S. Machinery Co., 252 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was an action for the contract price of steel allegedly purchased by defendants. It appearing that the interests of justice required a temporary stay of proceedings for “a reasonable time.”’ within which to bring in Israel Epstein “as a conditionally necessary party,”' Judge Palmieri in the exercise of his discretion granted a stay for an unspecified “reasonable time,” and plaintiff appeals. We construe the order as providing that after the lapse of such “reasonable time,” plaintiff may move to vacate the stay and proceed with the action or defendants may move to dismiss the complaint. As thus construed, the order is plainly interlocutory and not appealable. It is in no sense an injunction but merely an administrative order regulating the progress of the ease. Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was an action for the contract price of steel allegedly purchased by defendants. It appearing that the interests of justice required a temporary stay of proceedings for “a reasonable time.”’ within which to bring in Israel Epstein “as a conditionally necessary party,”' Judge Palmieri in the exercise of his discretion granted a stay for an unspecified “reasonable time,” and plaintiff appeals. We construe the order as providing that after the lapse of such “reasonable time,” plaintiff may move to vacate the stay and proceed with the action or defendants may move to dismiss the complaint. As thus construed, the order is plainly interlocutory and not appealable. It is in no sense an injunction but merely an administrative order regulating the progress of the ease. Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F.2d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brande-v-s-s-machinery-co-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack