Harvey Aluminum v. American Cyanamid Co., No. 203
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit |
| Citation | 203 F.2d 105 |
| Parties | HARVEY ALUMINUM, Inc. et al. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. et al. |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 203,Docket 22624. |
203 F.2d 105 (1953)
HARVEY ALUMINUM, Inc. et al.
v.
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. et al.
No. 203, Docket 22624.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued February 12, 1953.
Decided March 16, 1953.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 25, 1953.
203 F.2d 106
Donovan, Leisure, Newton, Lumbard & Irvine, New York City (Walter R. Mansfield, William C. Garrett, and Robert F. Morton, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellants, American Cyanamid Co. and Berbice Co. Limited.
Lundgren, Lincoln, Peterson & McDaniel, New York City (Walter Lundgren, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Reynolds Metals Co.
Hyman I. Fischbach, New York City (Hyman I. Fischbach and Vincent J. Crowe, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees Harvey Aluminum Inc. and Harvey Machine Co. Inc.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 25, 1953. See 73 S.Ct. 949.
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought on December 5, 1952 by Harvey Aluminum Inc. (hereafter referred to as "Harvey"), against American Cyanamid Company (hereafter referred to as "Cyanamid") seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell the tangible assets of Cyanamid's subsidiary
203 F.2d 107
Berbice Company Limited (hereafter referred to as "Berbice"). These assets consist of facilities for the processing and mining of bauxite ore from certain land in British Guiana. At the time of the filing of its complaint Harvey obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order pending the hearing and determination of its motion for an injunction pendente lite against the sale or transfer of the assets in question by Cyanamid to anyone other than the plaintiff. At the conclusion of a hearing before Judge Sugarman, during the course of which Harvey Machine Co., Inc., and Berbice were added as parties plaintiff and defendant respectively, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. The district court found, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' chances of success on the ultimate trial were "remote, if not completely nil." On December 15, after the temporary stay had been dissolved by Judge Sugarman, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs adding Reynolds Metals Company (hereafter referred to as "Reynolds") as a defendant and seeking as additional relief that any assets received by Reynolds from Berbice be subjected to a trust in favor of the plaintiffs. On December 17 notices of appearance were filed on behalf of all three defendants. On the same day plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from judge Sugarman's order denying a preliminary injunction, also entered on December 17. An application by the plaintiffs for a stay pending appeal was denied by Judge Augustus N. Hand on December 18, and on December 22 Berbice transferred its assets to the defendant Reynolds. Nothing has been done either to perfect or dismiss the appeal. Fearing that the plaintiffs were about to bring suit in British Guiana, the defendants obtained an ex parte order from Judge Conger on January 16, 1953, temporarily staying the plaintiffs and directing them to show cause why they should not be enjoined from commencing any legal proceeding in any other jurisdiction involving the same subject matter. On January 19, prior to the return day of the order to show cause, the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal stating that...To continue reading
Request your trial
164 practice notes
-
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, No. 10-4867-cv(L)
...one business day before the evidentiary hearing was to commence, on the authority of Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1953). In resolving the issue, we reach the same result as the district court, but by a different route. As previously noted, ISC purpor......
-
Williams v. Seidenbach, No. 18-31159
...Rule 41(a) to refer only to the entire case and not to individual defendants. See 958 F.3d 345 Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co. , 203 F.2d 105, 108 (2nd Cir. 1953). But our circuit precedents interpret "action" to cover individual defendants—thus allowing plaintiffs, like the Willi......
-
Marshall v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, Nos. 79-3018
...(7th Cir., 1972); Littman v. Bache & Co., 252 F.2d 479 (2nd Cir., 1958); Harvey Aluminum, Inc. et al. v. American Cyanamid Co., et al., 203 F.2d 105 (2nd Cir., 1963), cert den. 345 U.S. 964, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1383; Wilson & Co. v. Fremont Cake & Meal Co., 83 F.Supp. 900 ((D.C.) 1949)).......
-
U.S. v. Davis, No. 11
...Canadian Filters (Harwich) Ltd. v. Lear-Siegler, Inc., 412 F.2d 577 (1st Cir.1969); Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 964, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1383 (1953), on remand, 15 F.R.D. 14 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (Weinfeld, J.); Medtronic, Inc. ......
Request a trial to view additional results
164 cases
-
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, No. 10-4867-cv(L)
...one business day before the evidentiary hearing was to commence, on the authority of Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1953). In resolving the issue, we reach the same result as the district court, but by a different route. As previously noted, ISC purpor......
-
Williams v. Seidenbach, No. 18-31159
...Rule 41(a) to refer only to the entire case and not to individual defendants. See 958 F.3d 345 Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co. , 203 F.2d 105, 108 (2nd Cir. 1953). But our circuit precedents interpret "action" to cover individual defendants—thus allowing plaintiffs, like the Willi......
-
Marshall v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, Nos. 79-3018
...(7th Cir., 1972); Littman v. Bache & Co., 252 F.2d 479 (2nd Cir., 1958); Harvey Aluminum, Inc. et al. v. American Cyanamid Co., et al., 203 F.2d 105 (2nd Cir., 1963), cert den. 345 U.S. 964, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1383; Wilson & Co. v. Fremont Cake & Meal Co., 83 F.Supp. 900 ((D.C.) 1949)).......
-
U.S. v. Davis, No. 11
...Canadian Filters (Harwich) Ltd. v. Lear-Siegler, Inc., 412 F.2d 577 (1st Cir.1969); Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 964, 73 S.Ct. 949, 97 L.Ed. 1383 (1953), on remand, 15 F.R.D. 14 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (Weinfeld, J.); Medtronic, Inc. ......
Request a trial to view additional results