# Brief in Opposition — Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0070%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1962 - **Citation:** 369 U.S. 463 ## Text . : ; [> 3 prem G us. LISR AY | £2 ws eteesurt ys. | JUN 12 86 : oe 2 jometoz B LN Cla-t . eee ’ Supreme Court of the United States ° c Ae October Term, ey g No tens 2 (ist fot W\\ i ENA / F i; \ ' ' 4 i ‘ ; ( I’ , Briefliof Mercan Guirants Prot ¢ eripans of New York. Ne sateen: Pveceutor. of the betate of Miareus Pein. Deceased. mt Op pesitionm te Peution for a Writ of Certiorari ss ~~ —~— —_ —_— -_—— —- - — -_— eee a ! md \ i : . _ & ‘Be a ~@ t ‘ > } & " f ‘ j } . ; ?? 4 tf ~~ e s . + i ’ 4 } if - ~ P ~ a INDEX TO BRIEF PaGF Preliminary Statement ... Spaia in ees pork aie a : STatement of the Case a atts ” AIMS . : . ‘ Porxst TNo substantial or important qaesteon as to Marens Heiman is presented for review. The Court of Appeals for the Second Cirenit) was Unanimous on aftirminsy the order below as te him ape roan ures A ‘ Be . 2 Powr TL Petinener has eacquieseed in tlh at- firmance as te Marens/ Heiman. The qnestion presented for reyiew hae as to him. A re- View as te Marens Heiman would be wholly 7 ineffeatual for lack of ,% Proper party upon whom even a reversal might operate She - © Post HL.-The judgment.of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is not snch a final judg. ment and the issnes invelved as te Marens Heiman are not of such fundamental majectanes as to warrant a review bw the four : Mm Point IV.-~There is no real confliet: of decisions among the several Cirenit Uncons vo Misseuri, 362 ES. saa. Seg «bat : - f ¢ Gy Ce Si, peye tig & Trad tiv’ tw \ 1 thitend ee is... a ¥ mn Jt F599 Oth Cain WT 3 - Petrojenum Pinaneal Corn vo Stone. TIO Fo Sapp $26 0S. PP NY. 1940) Sehilles vo Matto @e. ine dst Fl 2d eon + ned tur Piya) ‘ = 1H. The Monrosa vy Carbon Black. Ine. Soe 0S. ps0, Ts} ee Trailmebile Co ovo Wheris, 221 US a Dee LE | PAuk 1, Is, lt > li iv : INDES United State. 4 W tein Lo] ke ss i © “se os. I> ie. 25 eye ‘ 18 Wilson v Kiutnscs (its sS Is Ca. Jy -. Sapp. i W }) Me. toys a : 16 st ATUTES AND AL THORITIES CITED 1 AM. JUR. Nhatetmient & Revival. Pootee ¢ Pele lw Pe 2S. Nhaterient & Revival Teb c lini: lw Federal Rales of (ive Procedure Rule 25. a) 13,12 9 Buk Sib) - epee gs Note. 68 Hary Lo Rex temo paay 8 18 BUS t.*4e22 13 IN THE a Supreme Court of the Bniterd States Octropre Term, 1960 No. 981 a 4d GotpLtawr, Isc., Petitiomer, Mareros Hermes. Sereor Operating Corporation and Usttee Rookine Orrtcr, Ive, R. sponde nf ne a | ee — Brief of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. Executor of the Estate of Marcus Heiman. Deceased. in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certtiorari Preliminary SMatement Petitioner, plaintiff below, seeks a voritoef certiorar: te review a qudgment of the Umiied States Court of Appect- for the Seeond Coreuit which affirmed the order dated January 27, 148) of the United States Pistriet Court for the Southern Pistret ef New York." Saat order ili di- Missed the complaints below as te the cerperate ce fend ants, Select erating € corporratiean and United Book:ne Office. Ime. for tack of jurtedietion ever the porson of said . a corporate defendants, and (2) dismissed the eomplaints as to Mareus Heiman for lack of jurisdiction over. his person and denied the motions of plaintiff to substitute the executors of the Estate of Mgrens Meiman, deceased, © as party defendants in place of Marens Heiman (See pp. Tla fla oof appellant's appendix in the Second Cireuit).? The affirtnanee be the Conrt of Appeals for the Second Coren? as te respendent VPirens Terman Was unanimous. Croldbanvd, Tne vo He oman, 288 Fo 2d TO, 5ST The qQhesfion presented f T review hy petitioner, namely “Whether the Distuet Court for the Eastern District of Pennsvivams ° ° © liad the power to transfer the case fer umpreper venne under 28 UoS0 ©) 414066a) withonf having obtained personal Jurisshetion over the transferred respondents?’ (petitroter’s brief, Pp. ?.3). does not bring op fer review the propriety of the affirm- ance as to Marens Heiman. The position of respondent Marcus Heiman on this applieation is different froftw that of the two corporate respondents. eS. 3 Vhe arder wis tied evryels m %an wit actions Nos t44 735 and 344 sa* s 1 t .. aS i SRA eptitied “Gel'llawr In Plontf vo Molten Shubert) Wilham Rie. Svivia Wo Golde. Marcus Heiman. Select Operaueg Corporation and Uroted Booking Office. In Defendant.” The Ceart of Aeqenis_for the Second Circuit had orginally die- miseed the anoes) taken Arar Me LPhiotr ¢ Qeeret pursuant te Rule i465) of the Federal Rules of Cow Preeethare Gralidlewe. dec vo Heamon 274 F 24 Tle) bat on reheating permitted the Postrace Court to “erter a fresh dectee for an apoes) pursuant te 2s US C 3il92cb) Goldawe v dlewman. 27> Fold 729 731 -* Statement of the Case Marcus Heiman died a resident and domiciliary of New York, New York, on September 9, 1957, almost eleven _months after the first complaint was filed (C. A. No. 22092, U.S.D.¢., ED. Pa.; 144 245, 8S. DON. YY.) The Mergait Goaranty Trust Company of New York and Asher Levy were issued letters testamentary by the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York on October 1, 1457.4 On Mareh 3, 1959, the date the United States Dystret Court for the ‘Eastern Distriet of Pennsylvamia ordered the actions transferred to the Southern District of New York, Mareus Heiman had been dead some fifteen months; he had not been personally served with process; the [hs trict Court had held that Mareus Heiman neither was found nor had an agent in Pennsylvania and hial dield venue there improper as to him (Goldlaer, Inc. v. Shubert, 160 FL Supp. 677, 679 682; petiteener’s appendix Bo pp 2a-23a); Marcus Heiman had not\waived lack of jurisdic tien over his persen or improper venue; his erecafora had not heen substituted as party defendants; there had been no appearance by the Estate of Marens Heiman: the estate had not received any legal notice of the pend: nev of the actions; there was ne one before the Dostret Ceut at the date of transfer authorized te represent the de ceased. Maren. Teiaman. or his e tioner limits this application for review to the propriety of the transfer as te the corporate respondents only. I rieder theese eirenms tiatiees, the ‘yite a The isstes “w th respeet to” Marco bdes:saecan are not so OND Pare Hath jing et Peeuia SEAVITY tes justity review, That Beet eloes gat hive power te pte against ua Party why, bas diet, who was never pret setialiy served 4 With PPPencees tiring hiss bifetirie waniel “ hice personal rep Fesentarives diaed rej dee Hos dates ti ayleed jana) beresueht Pormice Hie Ces t = Fett = > ~ 'e Phe Cart of Apps te the Biest Cort hee indy ated: its >» * rcree th He i: lu +e i, ~'h te tk |} 173 at TSS % Shes os) Coartt of Aye waive tated that transter would ‘e improper te. “not ‘ 17 Wee Cirenit in Schdler vo Mitel p Co supra, and upon other decisions steramiing from it. CSee nm. Wa. erfra.) Both Judge Moore for the majority and .Jindge Hine ks in his partial dissent reeounized that relanee on the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Scoller vw Mirehp ¢ supra, Was misplaced. Judge Meare at 2ss Fo vd STu 384. wrote: ; ting transfer under section we 1 RMI a) tlespite a flack of personal jurisdietion j over ‘the defendant indicate that the view that the section authorizesf/transfer even in the absenee oof personal jurisdiefion over the defendant had its genesis moa misconer pleon af the holding of this Court in Schiller v. Mit-Clip Co., 2 Cir, 150, 180 waa - FP. 2d 654° °°) The «nwarranted eonstruction of the statute based on Schdler has gained curresicy by Virtue of repetition.” (Banpbasis added.) The eases, dire Judge Hincks at 288 Fo 2d 579, S87, footnote 1" ‘stated: 2 . ~— “A a4 agree with the Judge below and with my ‘brothers that the decision of this Court in Schiller v. Mit Chip. 180 Fo 2d 654, does net speak to the pre cise question new raised although other case have e* e @ witen Seloiler a teore capansive reading That the Court of Appeals for the Distriet of Columbia relied on the S:} ler ¢ ease cannet be doubted. The Gourt wrote: _ The Court's lack of jurisdiction over the per- son of the defendant is immaterial. Schiller vy. Mit-Clip Co., Inc., 2 Cir, 180 F. 2d 654; Intérnatin. a 18 Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 4th Cir, 218 F. 2d 514; Oren Sheppmna & Tradna Co. ¥. United States, 9 Cir, 247 Fo 2d TA5, United States vo Welch, D.C. 11 FL Supp. 804; Petroleum: Financial Corp v. Stone, D ©. 116 F. Supp. 4.6."° Amerie Contact Plate Preesers. lee. vo Knouwtes, 274. F. kbSon, 54." The tase oof Daternates Bette rium, Ine. OV. Thomsen, supra.is an admiralty: deeston which hkewise may not be relowd npen. Thos Court ha mily reeentiy recogn zed R tween eivil actions such as the action at bar and @i CONCLUSION The petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit should be denied. . . aes Respectfully submitted, Aano® Lirren, om Ricnare Bo Daxxenpers, ° Atformsus for Moraan Guaranty Trust Company of New VarkBrecutor of the Estate of Marcus Heiman, Dhereased, 41 East 42nd Street, New-York 17, N.Y. Of Counsel: 4. : : - = = ae Lipper, Suixs & Kereriy, Esqps.. . 41 East 42nd Street, ; new York 13. TV. -: 17? Th. dewssion in Af e [yteemow 2749 3] { SIS UDC Tonh) rehes a dake the Courts earlier decisson in’ dmeno Cantict Plate Frees ers, Ine, ears and on f ne Kiotterdim [nie % Thomien. ters nete Judge Bazelon im a concurrence relied solely on the Amerio, Contact Plate Freezers decision “Accordutviv the Mayes decision suffers from the same infirmities as the Amero Contact Plate Freezers decision. 47 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0070%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.