U.S. Supreme Court, (April 27, 1936)
Docket number: 743
/us/298/160/case.html
Permanent Link:
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20018161
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018161
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
U.S. Supreme Court - CAB v. American Air Transport, Inc., 344 U.S. 4 (1952)
U.S. Supreme Court - Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U.S. 467 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court LOWDEN v. NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF MINNEAPOLIS, 298 U.S. 160 (1936)
[Page 298 U.S. 160, 166] interested factions and shaping his decree accordingly. We have no thought at this time to foreshadow the result of an exploring expedition directed to those ends. When all the facts are known, they may be found to offer no excuse for a departure from the rule in bankruptcy which, as indicated already, is generally, even if not always, the rule in equity as well. They may point, on the other hand, to the need for an exception, or may even lead to a decree in the nature of a compromise, the moneys being paid into the registry of the court to abide its f ture action. A decision balancing the equities must await the exposure of a concrete situation with all its qualifying incidents. What we disclaim at the moment is a willingness to put the law into a strait-jacket by subjecting it to a pronouncement of needless generality. Question No. 3 is so framed as not to call for an answer unless an affirmative answer is given to questions Nos. 1 and 2. Our conclusion as to the defective form of the certificate is borne out in a striking way by the concession of the parties. Before the argument on the questions, plaintiffs and defendant joined in moving us for an order to bring up the whole case. That motion was denied. Nothing in the nature of the controversy called for a writ of certiorari in advance of a decision by the court of intermediate appeal. The significant thing, however, is that in briefs submitted on that motion both parties admitted that the second question was defective. The plaintiffs said: The statement 'is not sufficiently complete to enable this court to answer the second question as applied to this case.' The defendant made a like objection. Plaintiffs and defendant fortified their general criticism by the enumeration of particular defects. The certificate is dismissed. Footnotes [Footnote *] The references in this opinion are to section 77 as enacted March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1474, and not to the amendments of August 27, 1935, 49 Stat. 911, 926.Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access