1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 69 F.2d
  5. 69 F.2d 97 (1934)
 

AMCHANITZKY v. SINNOTT

No. 223.

69 F.2d 97 (1934)

AMCHANITZKY v. SINNOTT.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 5, 1934.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nathan Amchanitzky, of Brooklyn, N. Y., pro se.

Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg and Emanuel Bublick, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was grounded on (1) lack of jurisdiction, and (2) failure of the petition to state a cause of action. The District Court granted the motion upon the second ground without passing upon the former. 3 F.Supp. 993. It should have based dismissal upon lack of jurisdiction. The rule that District Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus is too firmly...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases