Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Copco Steel & Engineering Co. v. Neunkircher Eisenwerk, 13892 (1959)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 13892 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 14, 1959
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 267 F.2d 491 COPCO STEEL & ENGINEERING CO., Appellant, v. NEUNKIRCHER EISENWERK, Appellee. No. 13892. United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. May 14, 1959. Arthur Rubin, Detroit, Mich., for appellant. Ronald M. Rothstein of Karbel, Eiges & Rothstein, Detroit, Mich., for appellee. Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant's motion of April 23, 1959, for an extension of time in which to docket the record on appeal is denied. 2 It appearing that
More

267 F.2d 491

COPCO STEEL & ENGINEERING CO., Appellant,
v.
NEUNKIRCHER EISENWERK, Appellee.

No. 13892.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 14, 1959.

Arthur Rubin, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Ronald M. Rothstein of Karbel, Eiges & Rothstein, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Appellant's motion of April 23, 1959, for an extension of time in which to docket the record on appeal is denied.

2

It appearing that appellant was granted by order of the District Court a fifty-day extension of time in which to docket the record on appeal, which time has expired without the record having been so docketed; that the cost bond required by Rule 73(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. has not been executed; and that the appellant has not ordered from the Official Court Reporter a stenographic transcript of the testimony; It Is Ordered that appellee's motion to docket and dismiss the appeal be sustained and said appeal is now docketed and dismissed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer