Legal Opinion

In re Bajardi

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 4, 1926No. 241PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, Circuit Judge (after seating the facts as above).

Appeal and petition to revise being mutually exclusive (In re Groton, etc. [C. C. A.] 5 F.[2d] 63), we note that the matter now before us does not fall within any of the cases specified in section 25a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9609). The proper procedure, therefore, is by petition to revise. In re Richardson Co. (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 600.

No reason is seen why either the state or the Attorney General should be considered as a party to this appellate proceeding. The motion was directed against the superintendent of banks alone;…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In re SageDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1915
  2. In re JarmulowskyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
  3. In re RosettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
  4. In re A. E. Richardson Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re Prudence Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  2. In Re Fidelity Assur. Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1941
  3. In Re KochCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
  4. In Re FaourCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  5. Matter of Israel-British Bank (London) LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API