United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc.
| Citation | 404 F.2d 329 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17187.,17187. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. CHELSEA TOWERS, INC. (Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff), Appellant, v. Louis ZARIS, Z B M CORP., Zaris Construction Company, Inc., Foundation for Cooperative Housing, F C H Services, Inc., Krooth & Altman, Provident National Bank, and Fidelity Bank, agent for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania School Employees' Retirement Fund (Third-Party Defendants). |
Harold Finkle, New York City, of counsel, Gorson, Lazarow & Aron, Atlantic City, N. J., (Joseph Lazarow, Atlantic City, N. J., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
William Kanter, Civil Div., Appellate Section, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Satz, U. S. Atty., John C. Eldridge, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
This appeal has been taken from an order denying defendant-appellant's motion to vacate or modify an order appointing a receiver and to stay the government's foreclosure proceeding and consolidate the foreclosure action with another action pending in the same court. At the same time we are asked to review a separate order granting the receiver's motion for delivery to him of escrow accounts and security deposits held by the defendant. The appellant contends that these orders are reviewable under section 1291 or section 1292(a) (1) or (2), 28 United States Code.
Appellant fails to distinguish the present case from Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp., 3d Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 234, where this court held that the denial of a motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver as improperly made in first instance is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (2). The order requiring the delivery of certain deposits to the receiver is neither final nor within any category of appealable interlocutory orders.
The court's refusal to stay the foreclosure proceeding to await the determination of another pending action is not an order granting or refusing an injunction and hence is not appealable. Day v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 3d Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 485, 487.
The order denying consolidation is not such a "final" order as is appealable under section 1291. True, the finality required by the statute has been judicially construed to include not only decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gavlik Const. Co. v. HF Campbell Co.
...consolidation in civil actions inapposite here. In Nolfi v. Chrysler Corp., 324 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1963) and United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 404 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1968), we held that the denial of a motion to consolidate two civil suits was interlocutory in nature and not appealable u......
-
Master Key Antitrust Litigation, In re
...of Colored People of Louisiana v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1973) (denying consolidation); United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 404 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1968) (denying consolidation); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2386 The argument made by appellants to ......
-
Lee v. Ply*Gem Industries, Inc.
...1201 (2d Cir. 1970); Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke, 475 F.2d 1086, 1090-1091 (5th Cir. 1973); Cf. United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 404 F.2d 329, 330 (3d Cir. 1968).17 See, E. g., Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F.2d 726, 729 (5th Cir. 1976); Chronicle Pub. Co. v. National Broadcasting ......
-
U.S. v. Winthrop Towers
...discretion in this area. For example, in United States v. Chelsea Towers, Inc., 295 F.Supp. 1242 (D.N.J.1967), appeal dismissed, 404 F.2d 329 (3rd Cir. 1968), the court rejected the mortgagor's claim that it had a right to rely on the government's projections of certain rent levels and oper......