Opinion ID: 314732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attachment of the Capital Stock

Text: 27 The District Court vacated the attachment of the capital stock on the ground that Rule 1254 had been violated. Although we repudiate this rationale, a concession made at oral argument before this Court moots the issue. Counsel disclosed that the 500 shares of stock, not having manually been seized, and previously thought to have been destroyed, lost, or their whereabouts unknown, have since been located in Massachusetts, thereby making vacation of the attachment proper. 28 In affirming the vacation of the attachment of the capital stock, we are mindful that there has not as yet been an adjudication on the merits of this controversy. Without such an adjudication, FDIC is not barred from engaging in further appropriate attempts to attach the identical res for the identical cause of action. Neifeld v. Steinberg, 438 F.2d 423, 432 (3d Cir. 1971). 29 Accordingly, the issue of the capital stock attachment having been mooted by concession of counsel, the order of the District Court dated February 22, 1971 vacating the stock attachment will be affirmed. 13