Decatur Cornice & Roofing Co. v. General Engineering Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decatur Cornice & Roofing Co. v. General Engineering Corp.

1 D.C. 237

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1933·No. Equity No. 57741·Published

Opinion

[238]*238MEMORANDUM

GORDON, J.

Notwithstanding the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Mellon v. Jones, 51 F. (2d) 431, it would seem that by reason of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia National Bank v. McKinlay, 63 App. D. C. 296, this Court would be warranted in appointing a receiver, as prayed in the bill, if all the parties in interest were within the jurisdiction of this Court. But inasmuch as the General Engineering Corporation of Pennsylvania, who is the primary party defendant and with whom the Government entered into the original construction contract, has not been brought within the jurisdiction of the Court the prayer for the appointment of a receiver will be denied.

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

[238]*238MEMORANDUM

GORDON, J.

Notwithstanding the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Mellon v. Jones, 51 F. (2d) 431, it would seem that by reason of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia National Bank v. McKinlay, 63 App. D. C. 296, this Court would be warranted in appointing a receiver, as prayed in the bill, if all the parties in interest were within the jurisdiction of this Court. But inasmuch as the General Engineering Corporation of Pennsylvania, who is the primary party defendant and with whom the Government entered into the original construction contract, has not been brought within the jurisdiction of the Court the prayer for the appointment of a receiver will be denied.

Decatur Cornice & Roofing Co. v. General Engineering Corp., 1 D.C. 237 (D.C. 1933).

Pincite

1 D.C. 237 (Decatur Cornice & Roofing Co. v. General Engineering Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.