U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1929

International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 6, 1929

32 F.2d 968; 59 App. D.C. 72; 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Chas. A. Douglas, Jo. V. Morgan, and Alfred C. Frodel, all of Washington, D. C. , for appellants., Julius I. Peyser, Geo. E. Edelin, and Theo. D. Peyser, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe (D.C. Cir. 1943)
Antonio Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, and Third-Party v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., Third-Party (2d Cir. 1962)
Brooks v. Trigg (D.C. 1947)
Simons v. United States (9th Cir. 1947)
Donovan v. Jeffcott (9th Cir. 1945)
Ray v. Bruce (D.C. 1943)
Price v. Wilson (D.C. 1943)
State Tax Commission v. United States (10th Cir. 1943)
Consolidated Radio Artists, Inc. v. Washington Section (D.C. Cir. 1939)
Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1935)
Smith v. United States ex rel. Gorlo (7th Cir. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a general order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of condemnation in a garnishment proceeding.

It is sought to invoke a question of jurisdiction on the statement of the trial justice in a memorandum opinion that he thought section 2 of Law Rule 55 of the Supreme Court of the District to be controlling in this ease. It is insisted that a motion of this sort is not controlled by rule 55, and that therefore the order was without the jurisdiction of the court. The order is a general one, and can be sustained if there was any jurisdiction in the court to make such an order. It is conceded that the court had such jurisdiction. The mere statement in the memorandum opinion may be correct or incorrect, but it can have no effect upon the validity of the order. It may be a ease where the court entered a proper order and gave an improper reason therefor, but with this we are not concerned since appeal will not lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. Dante v. Bagby, 39 App. D. C. 516; Doyle v. District of Columbia, 45 App. D. C. 90.

This furnishes sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal; but it also appears from the record that in another garnishment proceeding on the same judgment against the Merchants’ Bank & Trust Company the judgment was, “fully paid and satisfied by order of plaintiff’s attorneys.” The payment of the judgment leaves the question moot.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.