CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK
v.
STEVENS
Per Curiam:
The motion to amend the mandate in the above case seems to proceed on a misconception of the meaning of the judgment and mandate.-
The judgment of this court does not undertake to affect or reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, except in so far as that judgment sought to restrain the Central National Bank of Boston and the other plaintiffs in error from proceeding under and in accordance with the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, and to compel them to again try in the Supreme Court of New York matters tried and determined in the Circuit Court. As between the other parties the judgment of the Supreme Court of New York was, of course, left undisturbed, and it is not perceived that the terms of the mandate signify anything else, or imply the consequences suggested by counsel.
The motion is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union Wire Rope Corp. v. Atchison, 66 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1933)…definition of it. 38 C. <7. 965-972; Anheuser-(Busch Brewing Assoc, v. United States, 207 U. S. 556, 560, 28 S. Ct. 204, 52 L. Ed. 336; Allen v. Smith, 173 U. S. 389, 19 S. Ct. 446, 43 L. Ed. 741; Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 210, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 139; Seeberger v. Castro, 153 U. S. 32, 14 S. Ct. 766, 38 L. Ed. 624; Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 7 S. Ct. 1240, 30 L. Ed. 1012; Lawrence v. Allen, 7 How. 785, 12 L. Ed. 914; United States v. Hathaway, 4 Wall. 404, 18 L. Ed. 395…
-
Carr v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 302 F.2d 688 (1st Cir. 1962)…The Commission dealt with this subject simply by pointing out that something could be an intermediate or process product although it fell short of being a final product. It quoted from Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States, 1898, 171 U.S. 210, at 216, 18 S.Ct. 837, at 839, 43 L.Ed. 139 “Raw materials may be, and often are, subjected to successive processes of manufacture, each one of which is complete in itself, but several of which may be required to make the final product.” We do not find this particularly…
-
Citizens' & Marine Bank of Newport News v. Mason (two cases). In re Taka-Kola Bottling Co., Inc., 2 F.2d 352 (4th Cir. 1924)…sed in the tariff laws. Washing and scouring wool does not make the resulting wool a manufacture of wool. Cleaning and ginning cotton does not make the resulting cotton a manufacture of cotton.” In Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 210, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 139, the court likewise had under review the question of the dutiability of certain shooks imported from Canada, and used in the [*357] manufacture of boxes. The court at page 211 (18 S. Ct. 837) held that boxes made in the United States…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. Nat'l Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1898)