Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 F.2d 296

Docket No. 50.

Bush v. Leach

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 1, 1927.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1927-11-01

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hohorst v. Packet Co · Electric Protection Co. v. American Bank Protection Co. · Menge v. Warriner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1927-11-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1951

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

401927193019401950decided

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 error <§=>79(2) — Dismissal of complaint as against certain defendants held not reviewable, action being pending in trial court.

¶2Dismissal of complaint as against certain defendants held not reviewable on appeal, where no final judgment was entered; action being pending and undetermined in trial court.

¶3In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶4Action by William E. Bush and another, copartners doing business under the name of William E. Bush & Co., and others, against Arthur B. Leach and C. Bruce Campbell, impleaded with others. An order dismissing the complaint as against the named defendants was rendered, and plaintiffs bring error.

¶5Dismissed.

¶6A. Gordon Murray, of New York City (Charles H. Kelby and John B. Doyle, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

¶7Elmer W. Maher, of New York City, appearing specially for defendants in error.

¶8Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10This appeal seeks to review an order which dismissed the complaint as against the individual defendants Arthur B. Leach and C. Bruce Campbell. No final judgment has been entered in the court below, as the action is still pending there and is undetermined as to A. B. Leach & Co., Inc., and Philip J. Reilly. The appeal must be dismissed, upon the authority of Hohorst v. Hamburg Co., 148 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443; General Electric Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 194 F. 413 (C. C. A. 3d); Electric Pro. Co. v. American Bank Pro. Co., 184 F. 924 (C. C. A. 8th); Cay v. Vereen, 144 F. 839 (C. C. A. 5th); Menge v. Warriner, 120 F. 816 (C. C. A. 5th).

¶11Appeal dismissed.

/22/f2d/296 · .json · Public domain