But see concurring opinion of Judge Lombard on the matter of intervention
How later courts described this case
- But see concurring opinion of Judge Lombard on the matter of intervention
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I dissent from the implied holding of the court that these appellants had standing to prosecute this appeal in the absence of an appeal by the Bank. As Judge HINCKS’ opinion holds with regard to their claims of an illegal search and seizure, the appellants had no standing to complain about the order to the bank to produce the records since it was admitted that the records were not in their custody and were not owned by them. It think that the same rule applies to their claims that the records demanded of the bank lacked materiality and relevance to the investigation.
A year and a half has now gone by since the Commissioner first sought to examine the records in question. This long delay is most undesirable. Our courts should not permit interventions which delay government action at the investigation stage unless the interest asserted is direct and immediate.
However, whether or not in the absence of any objection by the government this intervention should have been denied, the fact that it was granted does not add anything fco the standing of the intervenors on this appeal, see Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, 1944, 321 U.S. 632 , 64 S.Ct. 776 , 88 L.Ed. 975 ; Alexander Sprunt & Son, Inc. v. United States, 1930, 281 U.S. 249, 255 , 50 S.Ct. 315 , 74 L.Ed. 832 , and I would consequently dismiss their appeal for want of standing.
Since the court has decided the merits of the appeal, I think that it is nevertheless not inappropriate for me to express my agreement with what Judge HINCKS has written.