Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Hewitt v. Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co.

Hewitt v. Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co., 22 F.2d 925 (2d Cir. 1927)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1927-12-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. These actions are for breach of contract against Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company of Delaware and Charles R. McCormick & Co., a California corporation. The affidavits interposed a defense that the actions abated as against the California corporation, because it was dissolved and had no legal existence at the time the actions were commenced.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hewitt v. Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
HEWITT v. CHARLES R. McCORMICK LUMBER CO.,22 F.2d 925(2nd Cir. 1927)
HEWITT v. CHARLES R. McCORMICK LUMBER CO. OF DELAWARE et al. KEEVENY v.
SAME.
Nos. 59, 60.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 5, 1927.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Actions by Eugene D. Keeveny and by William R. Hewitt against the Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company of Delaware and another for breach of contract. OrdersPage 926were entered abating the actions against the defendant Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company, and plaintiffs bring error. Writs of error dismissed.
John M. Gardner, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.

Kirlin, Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox Keating and Wherry Mygatt, all of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, Carlos J. Warner, and Frederic E. Mygatt, all of New York City, of counsel), for Charles R. McCormick Lumber Co. of Delaware.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These actions are for breach of contract against Charles R. McCormick Lumber Company of Delaware and Charles R. McCormick Co., a California corporation. The affidavits interposed a defense that the actions abated as against the California corporation, because it was dissolved and had no legal existence at the time the actions were commenced. On motions duly made, this defense was sustained. Orders were entered, and thereupon these writs were sued out.

Motions are made to dismiss the writs of error because of lack of jurisdiction to review them. Section 128 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 225) grants jurisdiction to this court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions of the district court. The orders entered below are not final dispositions of the cases as between all parties, and these writs of error cannot be maintained. Hohorst v. Hamburg American Packet Co.,148 U.S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443; Bank of Rondout v. Smith,156 U.S. 330, 15 S. Ct. 358, 39 L. Ed. 441; Arnold v. Guimarin,263 U.S. 427, 44 S. Ct. 144, 68 L. Ed. 371; Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Arnson et al. (C.C.A.) 239 F. 891; Menge v. Warriner (C.C.A.) 120 F. 816.

The writs of error are dismissed.