Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia

32 F.2d 968

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1929-05-06
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed International Bank v. Securities Corp. of District of Columbia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
INTERNATIONAL BANK v. SECURITIES CORP. OF D.C.,32 F.2d 968(D.C. Cir. 1929)
INTERNATIONAL BANK et al. v. SECURITIES CORPORATION OF DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
No. 4738.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted April 2, 1929.
Decided May 6, 1929.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Action by the Securities Corporation of the District of Columbia against the International Bank and others. From a general order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of condemnation in a garnishment proceeding, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
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.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
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 case. 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 case 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.Page 222