Copco Steel & Engineering Co. v. Neunkircher Eisenwerk

267 F.2d 491, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided May 14, 1959·No. 13892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s motion of April 23, 1959, for an extension of time in which to docket the record on appeal is denied.

It appearing that appellant was granted by order of the District Court a fifty-day extension of time in which to docket the record on appeal, which time has expired without the record having been so docketed; that the cost bond required by Rule 73(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. has not been executed; and that the appellant has not ordered from the Official Court Reporter a stenographic transcript of the testimony; It Is Ordered that appellee’s motion to docket and dismiss the appeal be sustained and said appeal is now docketed and dismissed.

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

Copco Steel & Engineering Co. v. Neunkircher Eisenwerk, 267 F.2d 491, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3872 (6th Cir. 1959).

267 F.2d 491 (Copco Steel & Engineering Co. v. Neunkircher Eisenwerk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.
359 N.E.2d 634 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1977)