Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Fabric Garment Co.

383 F.2d 984

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-10-17
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that principle behind the rule that orders granting discovery are not appealable is that defendant has choice to obey or to be punished for contempt and immediately appeal, which is adequate for the defendant’s protection without unduly impeding the progress of the case

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Fabric Garment Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. FABRIC GARMENT CO.,383 F.2d 984(2nd Cir. 1967)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff (Judgment Creditor-Appellee), v.
FABRIC GARMENT CO., Inc., Mayflower Manufacturing Corp., Alert Trading
Corp., Joseph Abrams, Harold Hyman, Murray Berman and David Q. Hartman,
Defendants. Eve Abrams, Witness (Appellant).
No. 112, Docket 31510.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued October 3, 1967.
Decided October 17, 1967.
Samuel Gottlieb, New York City (Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan Cole, Richard J. Rubin, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Howard L. Stevens, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph P. Hoey, U.S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, for appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eve Abrams, called by the Government as a witness in supplementary proceedings to collect a judgment against her husband, Joseph Abrams, appeals from an order of Judge Bruchhausen in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed June 2, 1967, over-ruling her objections to answering certain questions on the ground of her privilege against self-incrimination. Although the Government has not raised the question of our appellate jurisdiction, we are bound to do so, and must respond in the negative. It has long been settled that an order which merely directs a witness to answer questions in a pending judicial proceeding is not a final decision within28 U.S.C. § 1291. Alexander v. United States,201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906), is dispositive. The Court there said that although such an order "may coerce a witness, leaving to him no alternative but to obey or be punished," this was not sufficient for finality; a right of review will arise only if the court goes further and punishes the witness for contempt, "and this is adequate for his protection without unduly impeding the progress of the case." 201 U.S. at 121, 26 S.Ct. at 358. If further authority were needed, it can be found in In re Cudahy Packing Co.,104 F.2d 658(2 Cir. 1939); Cimijotti v. Paulsen,323 F.2d 716(8 Cir. 1963); 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.37 [1.-1]; 6 id. ¶ 54.16; and the many cases there cited.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the mandate will issue forthwith.Page 985Page 198