Santowsky v. McKey
| Decision Date | 25 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 2496. |
| Citation | 249 F. 51 |
| Parties | SANTOWSKY v. McKEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Bernard J. Brown, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
S. Sidney Stein and Julius Moses, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
If the order of July 5, 1916, here under consideration, was determinative merely of bankrupt's petition bearing date May 6, 1916, to dissolve a temporary injunction entered May 5, 1916, we are convinced that the trustee's position is untenable. A temporary restraining order made on application for a temporary injunction in any suit pending is not a final determination of the issues involved. Such an order is not res judicata of the issues temporarily disposed of thereby. Black on Judgments (2d Ed.) Sec. 695.
Upon a careful consideration of all the orders made and proceedings had in this bankruptcy matter, we are convinced that the District Court, by its order of July 5, 1916, disposed of no matter other than the bankrupt's petition of May 6, 1916, which sought dissolution of the temporary injunction, and the order of July 6, 1916, is therefore not res judicata as to the title to the property here in controversy.
The decree of the District Court, confirming the order of the referee bearing date July 28, 1916, is reversed, with directions to proceed to determine the title to the property in controversy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohler v. Callaway Callaway v. Bohler
...either. To give finality to such a temporary ruling would be contrary to the principles governing estoppel by judgment. Santowsky v. McKey, 249 F. 51, 161 C. C. A. 111; Knox v. Alwood (D. C.) 228 F. 753; Webb v. Buckalew, 82 N. Y. 555. When the case came again to the Supreme Court on the se......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Horn, s. 58803
...on either the court or the parties to the action. (Consumers Digest, Inc. v. Consumer Magazine, 92 Ill.App.2d 54, 235 N.E.2d 421; Santowsky v. McKey, 249 F. 51.) Therefore, the trial court correctly held that the denial of the motion was not a former adjudication of the matters raised in th......