Zamore v. Goldblatt
This text of 201 F.2d 738 (Zamore v. Goldblatt) 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.
Opinions
The first question, although neither party considered it in the briefs, is as to the appealability of the order. City of Morgantown v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd., 337 U.S. 254, 69 S.Ct. 1067, 93 L.Ed. 1347, is flat against appealability. So appellants’ attorney has admitted in his letter to the court submitted after the argument. This letter asks us to treat the appeal as a petition for mandamus. In Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mgf. Co., 2 Cir., 178 F.2d 866 at page 869, we said: “In this circuit we have twice refused to accept an appeal as a substitute for a petition for mandamus, even when that remedy was applicable ; and we shall abide by that ruling.”
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
201 F.2d 738, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamore-v-goldblatt-ca2-1953.