Case ID: f2d_98/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MOORE DRY DOCK CO. v. PILLSBURY et al.
    No. 8600.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 7, 1938.
    Emmet Cashin and Harold M. Sawyer, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
    Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and S. P. Murman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Pillsbury.
    Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order refusing an application for an interlocutory injunction. The order was entered on June 10, 1937. This appeal was taken on June 25, 1937. Thereafter the case proceeded to final hearing, and on November 22, 1937, the District Court entered a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint. An appeal from the final decree was taken on February 1, 1938, and is now pending in this court. Hence, the first. mentioned appeal should be dismissed. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 386, 53 S.Ct. 190, 191, 77 L.Ed. 375; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 224, 52 S.Ct. 559, 561, 76 L.Ed. 1062, 86 A.L.R. 403; Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U.S. 196, 205, 44 S.Ct. 553, 556, 68 L.Ed. 975; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 44, 40 S.Ct. 221, 222, 64 L.Ed. 445.

Appeal dismissed.