Studer v. Moore

Second Circuit

Studer v. Moore

153 F.2d 902, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 1992

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 25, 1946·No. No. 182·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At the time Studer appealed from the judgment dismissing the complaint against Moore, the action, so far as it was against the Irving Trust Company, remained undecided. The complaint sought a judgment against both defendants declaring that Studer “be adjudged the owner of the moneys which were on deposit in the Irving Trust Company * * * and which were transferred to the Comptroller of the State of New York.” It also asked that he “be granted such writ or process or remedy which” (sic) “will restore or place in his possession the moneys of the trust estate,” etc. The appeal was clearly premature, and did not remove the cause to this court. Hohorst v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Oneida Navigation Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed. 697; Bush v. Leach, 2 Cir., 22 F.2d 296; Huntman v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465. Since it was taken, and indeed, after the argument, we are advised that Studer has discontinued the action against the Irving Trust Company; a course which we ourselves suggested. Although it must be owned that the defect is purely formal, it concerns our jurisdiction, and, in spite of our first impression to the contrary, we see no escape from holding that, since the original appeal did not remove the cause, nothing done thereafter in the district court could supply its place. A new appeal must be taken.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

At the time Studer appealed from the judgment dismissing the complaint against Moore, the action, so far as it was against the Irving Trust Company, remained undecided. The complaint sought a judgment against both defendants declaring that Studer “be adjudged the owner of the moneys which were on deposit in the Irving Trust Company * * * and which were transferred to the Comptroller of the State of New York.” It also asked that he “be granted such writ or process or remedy which” (sic) “will restore or place in his possession the moneys of the trust estate,” etc. The appeal was clearly premature, and did not remove the cause to this court. Hohorst v. Hamburg American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Oneida Navigation Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed. 697; Bush v. Leach, 2 Cir., 22 F.2d 296; Huntman v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465. Since it was taken, and indeed, after the argument, we are advised that Studer has discontinued the action against the Irving Trust Company; a course which we ourselves suggested. Although it must be owned that the defect is purely formal, it concerns our jurisdiction, and, in spite of our first impression to the contrary, we see no escape from holding that, since the original appeal did not remove the cause, nothing done thereafter in the district court could supply its place. A new appeal must be taken.

Appeal dismissed.

Studer v. Moore, 153 F.2d 902, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 1992 (2d Cir. 1946).

Pincite

153 F.2d 902 (Studer v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.