Carroll v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 19 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22584.,No. 179,179 |
| Citation | 202 F.2d 714 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Amen, Gans, Weisman & Butler, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant; John Harlan Amen, James Lawrence Garrity and Sterling E. Cathey, New York City, counsel.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for defendant-appellee; Stephen P. Duggan, Jr., and William J. Granger, New York City, counsel, Irving Parker, New York City, argued.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
On September 7, 1949 the plaintiff, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to a warrant of attachment granted by Judge Conger in an action brought by the Republic of Poland against Pan Atlantic, Inc., levied upon properties of Pan Atlantic in the possession of the defendant, Manufacturers Trust Company. These properties consisted of certain bank accounts. A third party claimant obtained an order to show cause from Judge Bondy on October 14, staying the plaintiff "from any and all further proceedings" against Pan Atlantic, Inc. until a hearing and determination of a motion to vacate the attachment. On December 22 Judge Coxe signed an order extending the time in which the marshal might institute an action to reduce to possession the property of Pan Atlantic which had been levied upon for a period of fifty-three days after the entry of an order ending the stay contained in the order of Judge Bondy. On January 9, 1950, the stay was terminated by Judge Clancy. On January 16th the marshal made a second demand on the defendant for the delivery of the bank accounts which was refused. The present action was then commenced on March 1. The court below granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the action to reduce the deposits to possession had not been instituted within the ninety day period provided for by the applicable New York Statute, New York Civil Practice Act § 922, and that the period had not been validly extended by court order.
It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that Federal Rule 6(b), 28 U.S. C.A., authorized the extension of time granted by Judge Coxe. This rule provides that "When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time," the court in its discretion may enlarge the period. But this rule does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lankenau v. Coggeshall & Hicks
...readily interpreted as barring all proceedings in aid of the attachment, as well as the attachment itself. Cf. Carroll v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 202 F.2d 714, 715 (2d Cir. 1953); Lev v. Velaise, 82 N.Y.S.2d 284, 286 (Sup.Ct.), rev'd without opinion, 274 App.Div. 923, 924, 84 N.Y.S.2d 906 ......
-
Amoco Overseas Oil v. COMPAGNIE NAT. ALGERIENNE DE NAVIGATION
...90-day period could be had upon an application to the court prior to the expiration of the 90 days. See Carroll v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 202 F.2d 714, 715 (2d Cir. 1953) (per curiam); Nemeroff v. National City Bank, 262 App.Div. 145, 146-47, 28 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1st Dept. 1941). If § 922 wer......
-
Amoco Overseas Oil v. COMPAGNIE NATIONALE, ETC.
...adjective is reserved for the April 1, 1977, amended default judgment in a sum certain. See note 7, infra. 2 In Carroll v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 202 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1953), the plaintiff attempted to circumvent the ninety-day attachment renewal stricture of former New York Civil Practic......
-
Worldwide Carriers Ltd. v. Aris Steamship Co.
...Uranium and Oil Corp., 222 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1955); Carroll v. Manufacturers Trust Company, 14 F.R. D. 84 (S.D.N.Y.1952), aff'd 202 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1953). See J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 64.071-4 (2d ed. 1969). Cf. Preveza Shipping Co. v. Sucrest Corp., 297 F.Supp. 954 (S.D. N.Y. CPLR § ......