In Re J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc

Fifth Circuit

In Re J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc

254 F.2d 390, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4024

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 1958

Docket17191_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 390 (In Re J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc, 254 F.2d 390, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4024 (5th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Recognizing in its petition for leave to file that where an appeal lies a petition for mandamus cannot be made to serve its purpose, applicant, as a ground for granting leave to file it, alleges that the order from which it seeks relief is not appealable, citing 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1292.

Opponents of the petition put forward as their first counter proposition that “mandamus is improper because the district judge’s decision is appealable”, citing in support A. C. Dodge, Inc., v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 2 Cir., 218 F.2d 911.

Other cases having bearing on the point are Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg-American Line, 294 U.S. 454, 55 S.Ct. 475, 79 L.Ed. 989; Stark v. Texas Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 182; Postal S.S. Co. v. International Freighting Corp., 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 10; Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Gallotta, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 870; George J. Waldie Towing Co. v. Ricca, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 900; In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509; St. Louis Shipbuilding & Steel Co. v. Petroleum Barge Co., 8 Cir., 249 F.2d 905, 907; Cummings v. Redeeriaktieb Trans-Atlantic, 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 275, 276; United States v. The Lake George, 3 Cir., 224 F.2d 117, 118; Emerick v. Lambert, 6 Cir., 187 F.2d 786, 788; The Helen L., 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 884; Diacon-Zadeh v. Denizyollari, 3 Cir., 196 F.2d 491.

In the light of these cases, which to say the least show that the matter is not free from doubt, we cannot at this time accept as correct petitioner’s predicate for the leave it seeks. The petition for leave is therefore denied without prejudice to the right of the applicant to renew it if and when it has without avail sought relief by appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

Recognizing in its petition for leave to file that where an appeal lies a petition for mandamus cannot be made to serve its purpose, applicant, as a ground for granting leave to file it, alleges that the order from which it seeks relief is not appealable, citing 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1292.

Opponents of the petition put forward as their first counter proposition that “mandamus is improper because the district judge’s decision is appealable”, citing in support A. C. Dodge, Inc., v. J. M. Carras, Inc., 2 Cir., 218 F.2d 911.

Other cases having bearing on the point are Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg-American Line, 294 U.S. 454, 55 S.Ct. 475, 79 L.Ed. 989; Stark v. Texas Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 182; Postal S.S. Co. v. International Freighting Corp., 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 10; Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Gallotta, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 870; George J. Waldie Towing Co. v. Ricca, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 900; In re Wills Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 509; St. Louis Shipbuilding & Steel Co. v. Petroleum Barge Co., 8 Cir., 249 F.2d 905, 907; Cummings v. Redeeriaktieb Trans-Atlantic, 3 Cir., 242 F.2d 275, 276; United States v. The Lake George, 3 Cir., 224 F.2d 117, 118; Emerick v. Lambert, 6 Cir., 187 F.2d 786, 788; The Helen L., 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 884; Diacon-Zadeh v. Denizyollari, 3 Cir., 196 F.2d 491.

In the light of these cases, which to say the least show that the matter is not free from doubt, we cannot at this time accept as correct petitioner’s predicate for the leave it seeks. The petition for leave is therefore denied without prejudice to the right of the applicant to renew it if and when it has without avail sought relief by appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 390, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-j-ray-mcdermott-co-inc-ca5-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack