FIRST UNION TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, TRUSTEE,
v.
CONSUMERS 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 Supreme Court granted certiorari in a dispute between First Union Trust & Savings Bank and Consumers Co., but upon finding that the case had become moot, reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals' decree and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
The petition for writ of certiorari herein is granted. On consideration of the suggestion of the respondent of a diminution of the record and of the motion for writ of certiorari to correct . the same, it is ordered that such writ be, and it is hereby, granted. It having been shown to the Court that this cause is moot (Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653—658; Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528, 535, 536; Railroad Comm’n v. MacMillan, 287 U.S. 576), the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the orders appealed from and to dismiss the proceedings as moot. Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216; U.S. ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. Tariff Comm’n, 274 U.S. 106, 112; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U.S. 704.
Messrs. Rush C. Butler and Frank E. Harkness for petitioner. Messrs. Edwin M. Sims, Franklin J. Stransky, Silas H. Strawn, and John D. Black for respondents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. Bula E. Croker, 117 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1934)…67 L. Ed. 620; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Co., 239 U. S. 466, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 512, 63 L. Ed. 1030; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U. S. 585; 54 Sup. Ct. Rep. 61, 78 L. Ed. 517. : The present appeal, however, is not from a final decree but is from an interlocutory order of’the Circuit Court granting a- motion by the defendant below to vacate a lis pendens notice under Section 4550 C. G.…
-
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)…runt & Son v. United States, 281 U. S. 249; Hargis v. Bradford, 283 U. S. 781; Mahan v. Hume, 287 U. S. 575; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Macmillan, 287 U. S. 576; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U. S. 704; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U. S. 585; Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Smith, 290 U. S. 599; O’Ryan v. Mills Novelty Co., 292 U. S. 609; Hammond Clock Co. v. Schiff, 293 U. S. 529; Bracken v. S. E. C., 299 U. S. 504; Leader v. Apex Hosiery Co., 302 U. S. 656; Woodring v. Clarksburg-Colu…
-
Acheson v. Droesse, 197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)…v. Hume, 287 U.S. 575 [53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505]; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Macmillan, 287 U.S. 576 [53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505]; Coyne v. Prouty, 289 U.S. 704 [53 S.Ct. 658, 77 L.Ed. 1461]; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U.S. 585 [54 S.Ct. 61, 78 L.Ed. 517]; Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Smith, 290 U.S. 599 [54 S.Ct. 209, 78 L.Ed. 526]; O’Ryan v. Mills Novelty Co., 292 U.S. 609 [54 S.Ct. 779, 78 L.Ed. 1469]; Hammond Clock Co. v. Schiff, 293 U.S. 529 [55 S.Ct. 146, 79 L.Ed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)
- Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1923)
- Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1904)
- Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1926)
- United States Ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co., Inc. v. United States Tariff Comm'n, 274 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1927)
- R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Macmillan, 287 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1932)
- Arthur C. Harvey Co. v. Mauley, 289 U.S. 704 (U.S. 1933)