Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Dimock

Second Circuit

Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Dimock

210 F.2d 376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1954

DocketNo. 22961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 F.2d 376 (Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Dimock) 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

Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Dimock, 210 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner charges that Judge Dimock disregarded our mandate in Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsehe-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (Chemical Bank & Trust Co.), 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 71, 75-76, but since we have amended our mandate in this case, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 375, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of the petitioner’s contentions or the propriety of resort to mandamus.

Petition denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner charges that Judge Dimock disregarded our mandate in Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsehe-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (Chemical Bank & Trust Co.), 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 71, 75-76, but since we have amended our mandate in this case, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 375, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of the petitioner’s contentions or the propriety of resort to mandamus.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-trust-co-v-dimock-ca2-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack