No. 112, Docket 31510.

383 F.2d 984 (1967)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff (Judgment Creditor-Appellee), v. FABRIC GARMENT CO., Inc., Mayflower Manufacturing Corp., Alert Trading Corp., Joseph Abrams, Harold Hyman, Murray Berman and David Q. Hartman, Defendants. Eve Abrams, Witness (Appellant).

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Decided October 17, 1967.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Samuel Gottlieb, New York City (Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, Richard J. Rubin, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Howard L. Stevens, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph P. Hoey, U.S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, for appellee.

Before FRIENDLY, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


Eve Abrams, called by the Government as a witness in supplementary proceedings to collect a judgment against her husband, Joseph Abrams, appeals from an order of Judge Bruchhausen in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed June 2, 1967, over-ruling her objections to answering certain questions on the ground of her privilege against self-incrimination. Although the Government has not raised the question of our appellate jurisdiction, we are bound to do so, and must respond in the negative. It has long been settled that an order which merely directs a witness to answer questions in a pending judicial proceeding is not a final decision within 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906), is dispositive. The Court there said that although such an order "may coerce a witness, leaving to him no alternative but to obey or be punished," this was not sufficient for finality; a right of review will arise only if the court goes further and punishes the witness for contempt, "and this is adequate for his protection without unduly impeding the progress of the case." 201 U.S. at 121, 26 S.Ct. at 358. If further authority were needed, it can be found in In re Cudahy Packing Co., 104 F.2d 658 (2 Cir. 1939); Cimijotti v. Paulsen, 323 F.2d 716 (8 Cir. 1963); 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.37 [1.-1]; 6 id. ¶ 54.16; and the many cases there cited.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the mandate will issue forthwith.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

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