The Transfer No. 21

Second Circuit

The Transfer No. 21

218 F. 636, 134 C.C.A. 394, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1589

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1914

DocketNo. 147

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 F. 636 (The Transfer No. 21) 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

The Transfer No. 21, 218 F. 636, 134 C.C.A. 394, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1589 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the District Court does not finally dispose of the 'claimant’s rights, as its contentions can be asserted on appeal from the final decree, and therefore is not such a final decision as to be appealable. Section 129 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1134 [Comp. St. 1913, § 1121]) applies only to equity proceedings and .shows that the granting or refusing of an [637]*637interlocutory injunction is not a final decision, because it required the statute to make such orders appealable. Most of the claimant’s reasoning would apply to an order remanding or refusing to remand a cause to the state court because of the citizenship of the parties, but a writ of error cannot be, taken to either order. Chicago & St. Paul R. R. Co. v. Roberts, 141 U. S. 693, 12 Sup. Ct. 123, 35 L. Ed. 905; Bender v. Penna. Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 Sup. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537.

Motion granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of the District Court does not finally dispose of the 'claimant’s rights, as its contentions can be asserted on appeal from the final decree, and therefore is not such a final decision as to be appealable. Section 129 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1134 [Comp. St. 1913, § 1121]) applies only to equity proceedings and .shows that the granting or refusing of an [637]*637interlocutory injunction is not a final decision, because it required the statute to make such orders appealable. Most of the claimant’s reasoning would apply to an order remanding or refusing to remand a cause to the state court because of the citizenship of the parties, but a writ of error cannot be, taken to either order. Chicago & St. Paul R. R. Co. v. Roberts, 141 U. S. 693, 12 Sup. Ct. 123, 35 L. Ed. 905; Bender v. Penna. Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 Sup. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 537.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. 636, 134 C.C.A. 394, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-transfer-no-21-ca2-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack