Case Name: CITIES SERVICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors; ARKANSAS FUEL OIL CORPORATION, M. L. Benedum, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-02-07
Citations: 251 F.2d 846
Docket Number: Nos. 12428, 12429
Parties: CITIES SERVICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors. ARKANSAS FUEL OIL CORPORATION, M. L. Benedum, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 251
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
CITIES SERVICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors. ARKANSAS FUEL OIL CORPORATION, M. L. Benedum, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent, The Pennroad Corporation, Louis E. Marron, Intervenors, James W. Hearn, Paul S. Hearn, William J. Hearn and Eleanor Hearn, Intervenors.
Nos. 12428, 12429.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1958.
Decided Feb. 7, 1958.
Petition to Review an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed motions to dismiss these appeals. The Court has considered the motions. We deem it inadvisable to pass upon them in summary fashion. We believe it better to postpone decision until the appeals have been heard on the merits at which time the points may be fully reargued. An order to this effect will be entered.