Legal Opinion

Williams Holding Co. v. Pennell

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided November 10, 1936No. 8215PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an ex parte order appointing temporary receivers. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. His ground is that the order appointing receivers ex parte, and not after hearing, was not an appealable one.

Appellants, on the authority of our case, Marion Mortg; Co. v. Edmunds, 64 F.(2d) 248, insist that though entered ex parte, the order was not a mere preliminary, nonappealable one, but one which makes no provision for a specific time and place for a hearing and does not provide that it is to continue in force until the time set, and is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanssenSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Marion Mortgage Co. v. EdmundsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
  3. Hamer v. PennellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Maxwell v. Enterprise Wall Paper Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API