In re Bajardi
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
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
- In re SageDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1915
- In re JarmulowskyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- In re RosettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- In re A. E. Richardson Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Prudence Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- In Re Fidelity Assur. Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1941
- In Re KochCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- In Re FaourCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Matter of Israel-British Bank (London) LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.