Middletown Nat. Bank v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Middletown Nat. Bank v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co.

105 F. 547, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4890

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedNovember 27, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 105 F. 547 (Middletown Nat. Bank v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Middletown Nat. Bank v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co., 105 F. 547, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4890 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The order of September 28th wat granted by me as embodying my views expressed to counsel when they were present before me July 24th. These were, in brief, that the argument upon the demurrers should be treated as though it had never taken place, and the complainant, if so advised, should be permitted to amend its bill as authorized by equity rules Hos. 29 and 35. Demurrers having been interposed, and disbursements incurred for printing points and otherwise, the terms to be imposed, the taxable costs up to the time of the argument, should cover these disbursements. As the argument is to be treated as though it had never been had, the docket fee taxable upon a hearing should not be allowed. The order was framed for the purpose of imposing these terms only. The circumstance that I am unwilling, because of my personal interest •in a possible controversy in which similar questions may arise, to decide the law questions presented by the demurrers in the cause, does not in the least affect my duty to hear any other questions or dispose of any interlocutory proceeding, and should not trammel my judicial action. It is possible that the order as read, may be capable of misconstruction; and I have therefore made a new order, which I trust will remove any ambiguity.

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

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The order of September 28th wat granted by me as embodying my views expressed to counsel when they were present before me July 24th. These were, in brief, that the argument upon the demurrers should be treated as though it had never taken place, and the complainant, if so advised, should be permitted to amend its bill as authorized by equity rules Hos. 29 and 35. Demurrers having been interposed, and disbursements incurred for printing points and otherwise, the terms to be imposed, the taxable costs up to the time of the argument, should cover these disbursements. As the argument is to be treated as though it had never been had, the docket fee taxable upon a hearing should not be allowed. The order was framed for the purpose of imposing these terms only. The circumstance that I am unwilling, because of my personal interest •in a possible controversy in which similar questions may arise, to decide the law questions presented by the demurrers in the cause, does not in the least affect my duty to hear any other questions or dispose of any interlocutory proceeding, and should not trammel my judicial action. It is possible that the order as read, may be capable of misconstruction; and I have therefore made a new order, which I trust will remove any ambiguity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. 547, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middletown-nat-bank-v-toledo-a-a-n-m-r-co-circtsdny-1900.