In re Groton Laundry Service, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
The record at bar is a curiosity, illustrating a rather unusual numer of errors in practice. Natter deemed himself aggrieved by an order entered on June 7, 1924. His counsel accordingly filed in the District Court what was intended as a technical appeal. This paper is presented to us, printed and agreed upon as correct by the attorneys, but it is unsigned and undated. An examination of our files shows that on June 13, 1924, a document called a petition to revise was filed in our clerk’s office. This paper is not contained in the printed record submitted to us. Furthermore, it is signed only…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re MitchellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- In re Rival Knitting Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- In re J. Menist Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923