Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Christenson
| Decision Date | 19 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6047.,6047. |
| Citation | 263 F.2d 536 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
| Parties | LEWIS, ROCA, SCOVILLE & BEAUCHAMP, a partnership, Petitioner, v. The Honorable A. Sherman CHRISTENSON, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Utah, Respondent, Continental Bank & Trust Company, Respondent in Intervention. |
John P. Frank, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.
Calvin L. Rampton, Salt Lake City, Utah (David K. Watkiss and Arthur H. Nielsen, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for respondent in intervention.
Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, a partnership, has moved for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Honorable A. Sherman Christenson, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and based on asserted noncompliance with the mandate of this court in case No. 5835 entitled Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, a partnership, Appellant, v. Inland Empire Insurance Company, Appellee.1 Continental Bank & Trust Company, receiver for Inland Empire Insurance Company, has sought leave to intervene and tendered an answer to the petition for mandamus.
The motion for leave to file the petition for mandamus is granted as is also the petition of the receiver to intervene. The answer of the receiver is accepted for filing. The case has been adequately briefed and argued in connection with these preliminary matters.
The pertinent facts prior to remand are set out in our opinion in case No. 5835. After remand the receiver filed a "petition for judgment" which in effect was either a counterclaim or setoff. The trial court entered judgment for the partnership but refused to order immediate payment, holding that payment must await determination of the receiver's "petition for judgment."
In case No. 5835 we held that the Kentucky attachment brought by the partnership to collect its Arizona judgment was good. The Utah receivership proceedings came after the Kentucky attachment. The receiver by action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to which the partnership was not a party, secured possession of the attached securities, converted them to cash and holds the proceeds in Utah.
The stipulation of the parties that the validity of the Kentucky attachment be determined by the Utah court, while commendable from the standpoint of permitting the expeditious determination of rights, has resulted in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lankenau v. Coggeshall & Hicks
...But cf. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Inland Empire Ins. Co., 259 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1958); Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Christenson, 263 F.2d 536 (10th Cir. 1959); Collins v. Pacific Underwriters, Inc., 206 F.Supp. 727 (D.Alaska 1962); Herman v. Siney, 190 A.2d 650 6 The fa......
-
Whitlock's Estate v. C. I. R.
...938, 87 L.Ed. 1185. We have held that mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce compliance with a mandate. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Christenson, 10 Cir., 263 F.2d 536, 537. The Commissioner is entitled to mandamus relief. The Tax Court must comply with our The motion for certific......
-
CONTINENTAL B. & T. CO. v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, 6278.
...388 et seq. 2 Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Inland Empire Insurance Company, 10 Cir., 259 F.2d 318. 3 Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp v. Christenson, 10 Cir., 263 F.2d 536. 4 Cf. Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 130, 37 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192. See also Wyman v. Newhouse, 2 Cir., 93......
- Webster Rosewood Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., 139