PRINCIPALE
v.
ASSOCIATED GAS & ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appeal from the July order was untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate that order.
Appellant sought to collect on securities denied participation in a reorganization plan. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and later denied a m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by notice filed March 15, 1951 from two orders of the District Court entered respectively on July 21, 1950 and February 10, 1951. The July order dismissed a complaint which sought to collect on certain “Ageco” securities which had been denied participation in, the plan of reorganization confirmed in 1945 and consummated in 1946.1 The February order denied a motion of January 15, 1951 to> vacate the July order. The appeal from the order of July 21, 1950 dismissing the complaint must be dismissed for-lack of jurisdiction to review it. It was taken too late. Rule 73(a), F.R.C.P. 28 U.S.C.A. The notice of motion denied by the order of February 10, 1951 was an effort to obtain a reconsideration of the July order, and was also too late. Such, a motion must be served not later than ten days after entry of the judgment. Rule 59(b), F.R. C.P. Assuming that the denial of such a motion is appealable, the order denying it was correct and should be affirmed.
So ordered.
. See Elias v. Clarke, 2 Cir., 143 F. 2d 640, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 778, 65 S.Ct. 191, 89 L.Ed. 622; In re Associated Gas & Electric Company, 2 Cir., 149 F. 2d 996, certiorari denied Elias v. Clarke, 326 U.S. 736, 66 S.Ct. 45, 90 L. Ed. 439; Principale v. General Public Utilities Corp., 2 Cir., 164 F. 2d 220, certiorari denied 333 U.S. 814, 68 S.Ct. 662, 92 L.Ed. 1128; Principale v. General Public Utilities Corp., 2 Cir., 174 F. 2d 479, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 831, 70 S.Ct. 74, 94 L.Ed. 506.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gray v. Dukedom Bank, 216 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1954)
-
McConville v. United States, 197 F.2d 680 (2d Cir. 1952)
-
Hare v. Hurwitz, 248 F.2d 458 (2d Cir. 1957)
Authorities Cited
- Weiss v. United States, 326 U.S. 736 (U.S. 1945)
- Elias v. Clarke, 143 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. 1944)
- Principale v. Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp., 164 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1947)
- Schuermann v. United States, 338 U.S. 831 (U.S. 1949)
- Md. & Va. Milk Producers Assn., Inc. v. United States, 338 U.S. 831 (U.S. 1949)
- In re Associated GAS & Elec. Co. in re Associated GAS & Elec. Corp., 149 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1945)
- McCoy v. Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc., 323 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1944)
- Elias v. Clarke, 323 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1944)
- Cent. Stations Signals, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 174 F.2d 479 (2d Cir. 1949)