Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 284.,284. |
| Citation | 26 F.2d 247 |
| Parties | HATCH v. MOROSCO HOLDING CO., Inc. Ex parte MARGOLIES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
F. Wright Moxley, of New York City, for appellant.
Nathan Burkan, of New York City, for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
A majority of the court, as it is now constituted, think that our first decision impairs the jurisdiction of the District Court over assets already in its custody when the judgment of the state court was entered. They believe that the liquidation of claims is a part of the distribution of the estate, since it determines how much each creditor shall get, and that the distribution of the estate is part of what is usually understood as jurisdiction over the res. However, the former decision was reached after unusual deliberation and full presentation of all the questions involved. If it is to be changed, only the Supreme Court may do so; in the same case and on the same claim the first ruling must stand.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Fernandez
...down a principle of law for future guidance which is unsound and contrary to the interests of society.261 F. at 886.8 In Hatch v. Morosco Holding Co., 26 F.2d 247 (1928), aff'd sub nom. Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218, 49 S.Ct. 310, 73 L.Ed. 669 (1929), this court, referring to a prior de......
-
Gross v. Bush Terminal Co.
...It is not obliged to submit that question to another court, as was true in certain situations in a creditors' suit. Hatch v. Morosco Holding Company, 2 Cir., 26 F.2d 247, affirmed Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218, 49 S.Ct. 310, 73 L.Ed. 669. The federal jurisdiction in reörganization is ex......