In re Ironclad Mfg. Co.

Second Circuit

In re Ironclad Mfg. Co.

190 F. 320, 111 C.C.A. 220, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 190 F. 320 (In re Ironclad Mfg. 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

In re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 190 F. 320, 111 C.C.A. 220, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440 (2d Cir. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge,

If I were allowing an appeal, I could grant a stay; but the cause is already in the Circuit Court of Appeals by appeal, or petition to revise, or both, and an application for a stay would have to be made to the court. I have no power as a Circuit Judge to grant it. If I had, I would deny it, because in the absence of fraud the court has no right to interfere with the exercise of their legal rights as to collateral by pledgees.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge,

If I were allowing an appeal, I could grant a stay; but the cause is already in the Circuit Court of Appeals by appeal, or petition to revise, or both, and an application for a stay would have to be made to the court. I have no power as a Circuit Judge to grant it. If I had, I would deny it, because in the absence of fraud the court has no right to interfere with the exercise of their legal rights as to collateral by pledgees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 F. 320, 111 C.C.A. 220, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ironclad-mfg-co-ca2-1911.