Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co.

Second Circuit

Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co.

5 F.2d 1015, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1925

DocketNo. 255

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 F.2d 1015 (Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co.) 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

Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co., 5 F.2d 1015, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2832 (2d Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from is a plain violation of section 265 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1242), in that it contains an injunction staying proceedings in a state court in a matter which has no relation to bankruptcy and which does not interfere in any way with the custody, care, and distribution of the property in the hands of the court below under and by virtue of the bill. It is therefore directed that the order be reversed, [1016]*1016with costs. A direction will, however, be included in our mandate, and in the order to be entered thereupon, that should any judgment be entered in said action in the state court; such judgment shall not be taken to be a liquidation of any claim filed or capable of being filed under the judgment creditors’ bill herein, or as in any way affecting the right of the receiver to contest the claim so reduced to judgment de novo. Nothing, however, in our mandate shall be taken to prevent the court below permitting liquidation of Margolies’ claim by suit in the state court, should it prefer so to do.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from is a plain violation of section 265 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1242), in that it contains an injunction staying proceedings in a state court in a matter which has no relation to bankruptcy and which does not interfere in any way with the custody, care, and distribution of the property in the hands of the court below under and by virtue of the bill. It is therefore directed that the order be reversed, [1016]*1016with costs. A direction will, however, be included in our mandate, and in the order to be entered thereupon, that should any judgment be entered in said action in the state court; such judgment shall not be taken to be a liquidation of any claim filed or capable of being filed under the judgment creditors’ bill herein, or as in any way affecting the right of the receiver to contest the claim so reduced to judgment de novo. Nothing, however, in our mandate shall be taken to prevent the court below permitting liquidation of Margolies’ claim by suit in the state court, should it prefer so to do.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F.2d 1015, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-morosco-holding-co-ca2-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack