Home/D.C. Circuit/International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia

International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia

32 F.2d 968, 59 App. D.C. 72, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 6, 1929
DocketNo. 4738
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 32 F.2d 968 (International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia, 32 F.2d 968, 59 App. D.C. 72, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928 (D.C. Cir. 1929).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a general order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of condemnation in a garnishment proceeding.

It is sought to invoke a question of jurisdiction on the statement of the trial justice in a memorandum opinion that he thought section 2 of Law Rule 55 of the Supreme Court of the District to be controlling in this ease. It is insisted that a motion of this sort is not controlled by rule 55, and that therefore the order was without the jurisdiction of the court. The order is a general one, and can be sustained if there was any jurisdiction in the court to make such an order. It is conceded that the court had such jurisdiction. The mere statement in the memorandum opinion may be correct or incorrect, but it can have no effect upon the validity of the order. It may be a ease where the court entered a proper order and gave an improper reason therefor, but with this we are not concerned since appeal will not lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. Dante v. Bagby, 39 App. D. C. 516; Doyle v. District of Columbia, 45 App. D. C. 90.

This furnishes sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal; but it also appears from the record that in another garnishment proceeding on the same judgment against the Merchants’ Bank & Trust Company the judgment was, “fully paid and satisfied by order of plaintiff’s attorneys.” The payment of the judgment leaves the question moot.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Antonio Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, and Third-Party v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., Third-Party
301 F.2d 403 (Second Circuit, 1962)
Simons v. United States
162 F.2d 905 (Ninth Circuit, 1947)
Brooks v. Trigg
51 A.2d 302 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1947)
Donovan v. Jeffcott
147 F.2d 198 (Ninth Circuit, 1945)
State Tax Commission v. United States
136 F.2d 903 (Tenth Circuit, 1943)
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe
136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Circuit, 1943)
Ray v. Bruce
31 A.2d 693 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1943)
Price v. Wilson
32 A.2d 109 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1943)
Consolidated Radio Artists, Inc. v. Washington Section
105 F.2d 785 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co.
74 F.2d 909 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
Smith v. United States ex rel. Gorlo
52 F.2d 848 (Seventh Circuit, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 F.2d 968, 59 App. D.C. 72, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-bank-v-securities-corp-of-district-of-columbia-cadc-1929.