Securities and Exchange Commission v. CM Joiner Leasing Corporation
| Citation | 53 F. Supp. 714 |
| Parties | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORPORATION et al. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1944 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
O. H. Allred and R. F. Milwee, Jr., both of Fort Worth, Tex., and John F. Davis and Louis Loss, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for the motion.
D. A. Frank, of Dallas, Tex., opposed.
This suit was brought in the early part of 1942 to restrain the defendants by virtue of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a to 77aa. The trial court refused the injunction as to Joiner. By agreement restraint was granted against Johnson. The plaintiff appealed and the judgment was affirmed. 5 Cir., 133 F.2d 241. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. 318 U.S. 755, 63 S.Ct. 994, and on November 22, 1943, reversed the trial court and the Circuit Court of Appeals. 64 S.Ct. 120, 125. The plaintiff moves for judgment on the mandate. The defendant contends that he is entitled to have a re-trial.
As interesting as may be the question from the construction of the statute defining securities, it would seem that the decision of the Supreme Court forecloses further debate in that direction and requires the court to grant the motion. The only question being the exact meaning of the Supreme Court's direction to this court.
Such direction is contained in three lines, to-wit,
There is a paucity of decision to light the way. Probably because it does not need any more light. "Reversed" means "setting aside, annuling, or vacating." Laithe v. McDonald, 7 Kan. 254, 268. Where a judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, the effect of the reversal is only to set aside the judgment, unless it is apparent from the opinion of the court that the adjudication was intended to be a final disposition. Ryan v. Tomlinson, 39 Cal. 639, 646. When the words "reversed" and "remanded" are used, it would be error, was said, in Myers v. McDonald, 68 Cal. 162, 18 P. 809, for the court below not to award a new trial. To the same effect is a direction by the appellate court that the cause is "reversed for proceedings consistent with this opinion." The mandate would not authorize the trial court to summarily enter judgment in favor of the victor in the appeal. Quisenberry v. Chenault, Ky., 97 S.W. 803.
The use of the sole word "reversed," means a reversal of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc.
...Joiner Leasing Corp ., 320 U.S. 344, 350–51 (1943), judgment entered sub nom. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. C M Joiner Leasing Corp . , 53 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Tex.1944).With these principles in mind, the Court concludes that Congress's failure to expressly include directors in the list of those who m......
-
State v. Janis
...interchangeably with reversal. See, e.g., National Nut Co. v. Kelling Nut Co., 61 F.Supp. 76, 80 (N.D.Ill.1945); SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 53 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Tex.1944). "A judgment vacated on appeal is of no further force and effect, Riha v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 533 F.......