Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

204 F. 781

Docket No. 264.

Edenborn v. Sim

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 8, 1913.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1913-04-08

Action between William Edenborn and James Sim. Erom a judgment in favor of the latter, entered on report of a referee, the former brings error. On motion to strike parts of the record.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Denied · Decided 1913-04-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1950

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

4019131920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeal and Hhbob (§ (¡55*) — Record—Motion to Strike.

¶2AVhere, on a writ of error to review a judgment entered on a referee’s report, the record was voluminous and had already been printed, a motion 1o strike out parts of it would not be granted prior to the hearing on the merits.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2823-2825; Dec. Dig. § 655.*]

¶4In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

¶5Action between William Edenborn and James Sim. Erom a judgment in favor of the latter, entered on report of a referee, the former brings error. On motion to strike parts of the record.

¶6Denied.

¶7Arleigh Pelham, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

¶8T. B. Strong, for defendant in error.

¶9Before UACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

¶10PER. CURIAM.

¶11This voluminous record has already been printed, and it may require very careful scrutiny to determine just what parts of it are not properly before us. For this reason it seems wiser to deny the present motion to strike out parts of it. The questions presented may be disposed of on the main argument.

¶12In making this disposition of the motion, we are not to be understood as intimating any departure from the well-settled practice, announced in decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, as to what questions are open to review on writ of error from a judgment entered after a hearing before a referee.

/204/f1d/781 · .json · Public domain