Butler v. Ungerleider

Second Circuit

Butler v. Ungerleider

199 F.2d 709, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1952

Docket56, Docket 22446

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 F.2d 709 (Butler v. Ungerleider) 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

Butler v. Ungerleider, 199 F.2d 709, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3417 (2d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have already held the service of summons in this suit sufficient, Butler v. Ungerleider, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 238, and have heretofore denied a motion to dismiss this appeal. It is from an order, 101 F.Supp. 379, staying all proceedings to enforce the judgment entered against the appellee in the prior suit until this action has been decided.

The denials of the motions for a stay in the suit in which the judgment was entered were no bar to the granting of this motion; nor was the denial of a similar motion in this suit, both by the court below and by us, before the sufficiency of the service of summons was upheld in our decision above cited. O'Brien v. O'Brien, 362 Pa. 66, 66 A.2d 309, 10 A.L.R.2d 714.

The District Court had inherent power in the exercise of a sound discretion to maintain the status quo until this appellee could have an opportunity to make good upon trial the allegations of his complaint and we find no abuse of that discretion. Nothing in Rule 60(b), F.R.C.P. 28 U.S.C.A. makes this suit untimely.

Order affirmed.

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