In re Lansley

Second Circuit

In re Lansley

7 F.2d 888, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3644

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. 380

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F.2d 888 (In re Lansley) 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 Lansley, 7 F.2d 888, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3644 (2d Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the court-below that, since there was no property bathe custody of the court affected by the apparent legal title outstanding in. Smith,, service- of the show -cause order in New Jersey gave no jurisdiction to the court for the Eastern district of New York. Remington (3d Ed.) § 34, vol. 1, p. 64 et seq.

The proper practice would have been to-apply for ancillary summary process in the-New Jersey district. Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 102, 30 S. Ct. 372, 54 L. Ed. 402,. 17 Ann. Cas. 969.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the court-below that, since there was no property bathe custody of the court affected by the apparent legal title outstanding in. Smith,, service- of the show -cause order in New Jersey gave no jurisdiction to the court for the Eastern district of New York. Remington (3d Ed.) § 34, vol. 1, p. 64 et seq.

The proper practice would have been to-apply for ancillary summary process in the-New Jersey district. Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 102, 30 S. Ct. 372, 54 L. Ed. 402,. 17 Ann. Cas. 969.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F.2d 888, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lansley-ca2-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack