Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corporation
| Decision Date | 22 December 1939 |
| Citation | 108 F.2d 594 |
| Parties | NACHOD et al. v. ENGINEERING & RESEARCH CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Watson, Bristol, Johnson & Leavenworth, of New York City, and T. Clay Lindsey, of Hartford, Conn., for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. Dwight Dana, of New Haven, Conn., and Clifton V. Edwards and D. Gordon Angus, both of New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.
Our term having expired since the mandate went down, we have no power to recall it. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co., 150 U.S. 82, 14 S.Ct. 22, 37 L.Ed. 1007; Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289; Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione, 2 Cir., 239 F. 1023; Dobson v. United States, 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 288. Rule 6(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, does not apply to Circuit Courts of Appeals.
We wish, however, to make plain that there are several questions which we are not deciding. First, we do not decide that the district judge has no power to vacate his order dismissing the complaint against the Automatic Signal Corporation; that we leave to him. Second, if he should vacate that order so that the Signal Corporation again becomes a party, we do not decide whether our affirmance of the decree from which the appeal was taken, will prevent his vacating that decree also because of the changed situation that will then arise. That too we leave to him. Third, if our consent is necessary before he may vacate the order from which the appeal was taken, we do not decide whether we have power to grant that consent, notwithstanding the expiration of the term. That we reserve until it may arise.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glass Co v. Co
...circuit courts of appeal have uniformly observed the rule thus announced. Hart v. Wiltsee, 1 Cir., 25 F.2d 863; Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594; Montgomery v. Realty Acceptance Corp., 3 Cir., 51 F.2d 642; Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 4 Cir., 90 F.2d 948; W......
-
Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. National Labor R. Board
...was taken." But these rules, whatever their scope, have no application to the Circuit Court of Appeals (Nachod et al. v. Engineering Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594, holding specifically Rule 6 (c) does not apply to C.C.A.), and therefore the loss of jurisdiction with the ending of the......
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
...can be deemed to have been continued. This rule applies with full vigor to a Circuit Court of Appeals. See Nachod et al. v. Engineering & Research Corporation, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594, where the Court of Appeals said, — "Our term having expired since the mandate went down, we have no power to ......
-
Hines v. Royal Indemnity Company
...apply to procedure in the District Courts, not to the Court of Appeals. Rule 1, Rules of Civil Procedure; Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594; Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 481, The Court of Appeals, under its authority to make its own r......
-
Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Appellate Arena: Judicial Notice and the Potential of the Legislative Fact Remand
...do not apply to courts of appeals. Hines v. Royal Indemnity Co., 253 F.2d 111, (6th Cir. 1958); Nachod v. Engineering and Research Corp., 108 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1939); Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 129 F.2d 481, 484 (7th Cir. 80. Benjamin, supra note 66, at 360 (citing Salve Regina ......