Mifflinburg Body Works, Inc. v. Murphy

Third Circuit

Mifflinburg Body Works, Inc. v. Murphy

197 F.2d 417, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3684

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1952

Docket10730

StatusPublished

This text of 197 F.2d 417 (Mifflinburg Body Works, Inc. v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mifflinburg Body Works, Inc. v. Murphy, 197 F.2d 417, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3684 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner here prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the district judge to vacate his order dismissing petitioner’s petition for corporate reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and directing the judge to approve said reorganization.

The order of the district court disapproving the petition and dismissing it is an appealable order under the appeal provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 34 Stat. 553, as amended. 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 47 and 48. O’Connor v. Mills, 300 U.S. 26, 57 S.Ct. 381, 81 L.Ed. 483; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 4 Cir., 83 F.2d 98. No justification has been shown for disregarding the indicated practice in attempting to invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

*418 The rule to show cause heretofore issued in this case will be discharged. The stay included in said rule will be vacated and for nothing holden and the petition for writ of mandamus will be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner here prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the district judge to vacate his order dismissing petitioner’s petition for corporate reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and directing the judge to approve said reorganization.

The order of the district court disapproving the petition and dismissing it is an appealable order under the appeal provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 34 Stat. 553, as amended. 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 47 and 48. O’Connor v. Mills, 300 U.S. 26, 57 S.Ct. 381, 81 L.Ed. 483; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 4 Cir., 83 F.2d 98. No justification has been shown for disregarding the indicated practice in attempting to invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

*418 The rule to show cause heretofore issued in this case will be discharged. The stay included in said rule will be vacated and for nothing holden and the petition for writ of mandamus will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 417, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mifflinburg-body-works-inc-v-murphy-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack