Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jones

85 F.2d 17, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4012
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 13, 1936
Docket479
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 85 F.2d 17 (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jones) 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
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jones, 85 F.2d 17, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4012 (2d Cir. 1936).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from denied appellant’s motion to vacate an injunction pendente lite, entered upon his consent; also to dismiss the bill of complaint, and to suppress evidence secured from appellant and to direct the appellee to return copies thereof now in its possession.

In view of the consent to the injunction pendente lite, the contention now raised, that it resulted from an illegal investigation, becomes immaterial.. The consent to the entry of the injunction waived any error of decision that might have been made. Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 48 S.Ct. 311, 72 L.Ed. 587. Moreover, appellant stipulated that his books could be examined. The attack made upon the bill of complaint because it failed to allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law becomes immaterial, since the injunctive relief is provided for by the statute. Section 20 (b), Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77t (b).

We have heretofore held that the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77a et seq.) is constitutional. Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Jones (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 617. In a review of that case, the Supreme Court reversed upon other grounds. 298 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 654, 80 L.Ed. 1015.

The denial of that part of the order asking the suppression of the evidence and return of papers we will not now consider, for that part of the relief refused is not appealable. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; In re Bob, 76 F.(2d) 131 (C.C.A.2).

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Chandler v. Siegleman
180 F.3d 1254 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Unifund SAL
910 F.2d 1028 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Securities And Exchange Commission v. Unifund Sal
910 F.2d 1028 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Wellman v. Dickinson
79 F.R.D. 341 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Davis v. HUTTIG SASH AND DOOR COMPANY
288 F. Supp. 82 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1968)
The People Ex Rel. Carpentier v. Goers
170 N.E.2d 159 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1960)
Howard v. Furst
140 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. New York, 1956)
Douds v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
99 F. Supp. 474 (D. New Jersey, 1951)
Bowles v. Swift & Co.
56 F. Supp. 679 (D. Delaware, 1944)
Fleming v. Alderman
51 F. Supp. 800 (D. Connecticut, 1943)
Henderson v. Baldwin
54 F. Supp. 438 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)
Fleming v. Warshawsky & Co.
123 F.2d 622 (Seventh Circuit, 1941)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lawson
24 F. Supp. 360 (D. Maryland, 1938)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Torr
22 F. Supp. 602 (S.D. New York, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 F.2d 17, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jones-ca2-1936.