Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
MAYER v. CHASE NATL. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 242 F.2d 148 (2nd Cir. 1957)
Rosa MAYER as Adm’r, Adm’x of Benjamin Mayer, Plaintiff, v. CHASENATIONAL BANK OF the CITY OF N.Y., as Tr., etc., W. PacificRailroad Corp., Wells Fargo Bank Union Tr. Co. & Helene N.Preis, as Trs. under the Will of Sanford Sachs, John M. Wilmans asExecutor of Lillian Wilmans, Leo V. Korbel, & Bank of Am. NationalTrust Sav. Ass’n, etc., Defendants, Euphemia V.R. Wyatt, asAdministratrix c t a of Chr
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1957-03-12
- Topic
- general
MAYER v. CHASE NATL. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 242 F.2d 148 (2nd Cir. 1957) Rosa MAYER as Administratrix of Benjamin Mayer, Plaintiff, v. CHASENATIONAL BANK OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, as Trustee, etc., Western PacificRailroad Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank Union Trust Company and Helene N.Preis, as Trustees under the Will of Sanford Sachs, John M. Wilmans asExecutor of Lillian Wilmans, Leo V.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed MAYER v. CHASE NATL. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 242 F.2d 148 (2nd Cir. 1957). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Eugene H. Nickerson, New York City, Special Guardian.
Bernard Cowen, New York City, for Intervening defendants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, New York City, for the People of the State of New York.
Milbank, Tweed, Hope Hadley, New York City, for Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.
Abraham J. Gellinoff, New York City, Special Guardian.
The motions are denied. Evidently our opinion on the prior appeal was not sufficiently explicit. We did not intend to preclude the claimants from proceeding upon some new theory based upon new facts other than those considered in the claim we rejected; nor did we intend to prejudge any application for leave to serve an amended complaint. Accordingly, as the dismissal appears to be based upon a misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of the remand, we now vacate the judgment of dismissal and again remand the case in order that all issues raised by the pleadings, other than the claim we have already rejected, be determined.