Central Trust Co. of New York v. United States Flour Milling Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Central Trust Co. of New York v. United States Flour Milling Co.

113 F. 587, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4739

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedSeptember 2, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 113 F. 587 (Central Trust Co. of New York v. United States Flour Milling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Trust Co. of New York v. United States Flour Milling Co., 113 F. 587, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4739 (circtsdny 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

While the decree for foreclosure and sale signed by Judge THOMAS remains on the record, it should be accepted by this court as a decision upon the merits, to which future action should be conformed. If, as is asserted, that decree was made without notice to any of the parties, or was contrary to a prior adjudication, or was improvident, it may be corrected by application to modify or by appeal. Until this is done, however, it must be assumed that such decree has secured some benefit to nonassenting bondholders, which they would not otherwise have obtained. Therefore it would be an abuse of discretion for another judge of the same court to nullify the advantages thus secured to third parties, even though not parties strictly of record, by ordering a discontinuance against their objection.

Motion denied. The order denying the motion may also contain a clause forbidding the receivers or any of the parties from removing out of the jurisdiction of this court any property affected by the decree, and now within such jurisdiction.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

While the decree for foreclosure and sale signed by Judge THOMAS remains on the record, it should be accepted by this court as a decision upon the merits, to which future action should be conformed. If, as is asserted, that decree was made without notice to any of the parties, or was contrary to a prior adjudication, or was improvident, it may be corrected by application to modify or by appeal. Until this is done, however, it must be assumed that such decree has secured some benefit to nonassenting bondholders, which they would not otherwise have obtained. Therefore it would be an abuse of discretion for another judge of the same court to nullify the advantages thus secured to third parties, even though not parties strictly of record, by ordering a discontinuance against their objection.

Motion denied. The order denying the motion may also contain a clause forbidding the receivers or any of the parties from removing out of the jurisdiction of this court any property affected by the decree, and now within such jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F. 587, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-co-of-new-york-v-united-states-flour-milling-co-circtsdny-1901.