Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

280 F. 721

Docket No. 173.

United States v. Reed

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 13, 1922.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1922-03-13

<p>Appeal and error <©=»833(3) — Time for applying for rehearing extended until Supreme Court decides ruling case.</p> <p>Where a judgment of the District Court is affirmed on the authority of a prior decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals, to review which the Supreme Court had issued, a writ of certiorari, the mandate in the case at bar will issue in the usual manner, but the term of the court and the time within which plaintiff in error can apply for a rehearing will be extended until 30 days after the decision of the Supreme Court in the ruling ca'se.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Sischo · United States v. Reed

Affirmed, but time to apply for rehearing extended · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1922-03-13

¶1Appeal and error <©=»833(3) — Time for applying for rehearing extended until Supreme Court decides ruling case.

¶2Where a judgment of the District Court is affirmed on the authority of a prior decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals, to review which the Supreme Court had issued, a writ of certiorari, the mandate in the case at bar will issue in the usual manner, but the term of the court and the time within which plaintiff in error can apply for a rehearing will be extended until 30 days after the decision of the Supreme Court in the ruling ca'se.

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

¶4Action at law by the United States against John Reed to recover penalties for violations of the customs laws. Judgment for defendant (274 Fed. 724), and the United States brings error.

¶5Affirmed, but time to apply for rehearing extended.

¶6Wallace E. Collins, U. S. Atty., of Jamaica, N. Y„ and Henry J. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y.

¶7Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Cletus Keating and Harry D. Thirkield, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

¶8Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10Judgment affirmed, on the authority of United States v. Sischo (C. C. A.) 270 Fed. 958.

¶11It appearing, however, that the decision above cited is now under review upon certiorari in the Supreme Court, and that it has been set for argument in October, 1922, it is ordered: (1) That the mandate herein issue in the usual manner; (2) that the term of October, 1921, *722in this court be extended, and the time of the plaintiff in error to apply for a rehearing be likewise extended, until 30 days after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the above-entitled cause of United States v. Sischo.

/280/f1d/721 · .json · Public domain