Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co.
| Citation | 209 F. 206 |
| Parties | ASSETS COLLECTING CO. v. BARNES-KING DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1913 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
R. S. Harvey and F. E. M. Bullowa, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Chadbourne & Shores, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Before COXE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and HAZEL, District Judge.
This is a motion to quash a writ of error to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 1913, which order provided that the attachment heretofore granted be vacated unless the plaintiff increase the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500. The plaintiff has failed to increase the security as required and now sues out a writ of error to review the order requiring it. security was insufficient, was certainly justified in increasing it. Its action was in no sense final, but was purely discretionary, and intended only to give the defendant additional security covering the fees and costs incurred by it subsequent to the order of March 4, 1911. Such an order is not reviewable on writ of error. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3, 1 Sup.Ct. 15, 27 L.Ed. 73; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L.Ed. 891; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. L. Bucki, etc., Co., 92 F. 864, 35 C.C.A. 59.
The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
21 Turtle Creek Square, Ltd. v. NEW YORK ST. TEACH. RETIRE. SYS.
...order dissolving an attachment was not such a final order from which an appeal could be taken. See also Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development Co., 2 Cir. 1914, 209 F. 206, to the same Later decisions of the Supreme Court have expanded the scope of final judgments beyond the limit......
-
Crooker v. Knudsen
... ... Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580, 13 Sup.Ct. 934, 37 L.Ed. 856; ... Assets Collecting Co. v. Barnes-King Development ... Co., 209 F. 206, 126 C.C.A ... ...