Harper Bros. v. Klaw
Opinion
The motion resulting in the order sought to be resettled had two parts: (1) That plaintiffs have leave to file in the District Court a bill of review; or (2) that plaintiffs have leave to apply to the District Court for leave there to file such bill of review.
The arguments made on this motion to resettle lead us to state the reasons for the order of January 5th, and we do this to aid the District Court in any further proceeding that may be had herein.
[896]*896We express no opinion as to whether a bill of review is the proper or necessary method of proceeding, or whether any other application in, the District Court would or would not serve plaintiffs’ purpose. It is enough for present purposes that plaintiffs may make their application in the District Court, and if the District Court applies for the return of the record we shall consider that application when it is before us.
Meanwhile proceedings on the appeal are further stayed for 30 days from the date hereof, and it is not necessary to change or resettle the order already made. Therefore the motion to resettle is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
272 F. 894 (Harper Bros. v. Klaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.