Opinion

Porter v. American Distilling Co.

  • 157 F.2d 1012
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Filed
Nov 4, 1946
Status
Published
On the bench
Augustus N. Hand, Chase, and Clark, Circuit Judges
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 93.3%

The opinion

157 F.2d 1012 (1946)

PORTER, Price Administrator,

v.

AMERICAN DISTILLING CO., Inc., et al.

No. 23, Docket 20249.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 4, 1946.

Albert M. Dreyer, Sol., George Moncharsh, Deputy Administrator for Enforcement, Milton Klein, Director, Litigation Division, David London, Chief, Appellate Branch, and Ernest Cook, Atty., Office of Price Administration, all of Washington, D. C., Kenneth Fisher, Regional Litigation Atty., and William Sardell, Chief, Opinion and Research Branch, Office of Price Administration, both of New York City, of plaintiff-appellant, Paul Porter.

John J. Burns and Reed, Truslow, Crane & deGive, all of New York City (John J. Burns and William G. Mulligan, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, American Distilling Co.

William B. Herlands, of New York City (William B. Herlands and Herbert S. Herlands, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees, Russell R. Brown, Henry C. Cole, Sam Rothberg, Thomas S. Brown, Stewart M. Seymour, and William H. Damour.

Edwin M. Slote, of New York City (Max E. Lynne, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Peter E. Siskind.

Garey, Desvernine & Kissam, of New York City (Jacob J. Rosenblum, Wm. Francis Corson, and Abraham Hornstein, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Stanhope Foster and Samuel L. Westerman individually, and Stanhope Foster, Samuel L. Westerman, and Sidney Kessler, as copartners doing business as Foster & Co.

Powers, Kaplan & Berger, of New York City (Samuel A. Berger, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Sidney Kessler, individually.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of Count 3 only affected certain of the many defendants who were sued jointly upon that count. The orders left Count 3 undisposed of as to various other defendants sued jointly and were not therefore final and hence not appealable. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262 , 13 S.Ct. 590 , 37 L.Ed. 443 . Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 902 ; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465 ; cf. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 286 , 62 S.Ct. 1085 , 86 L.Ed. 1478 .

Appeals dismissed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.