Court Opinion

ID: 2962352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:56:45.559772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:42.822375
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 17, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 93-2035                     IN RE MICROBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, INC., ETC.,                                       Debtor.                                 ____________________                           MICROBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, INC.,                                       Debtor,                                          v.                           KENNETH A. McGAW, ETC., ET AL.,                                     Appellants.                              _________________________                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                       Selya, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                                ______________                              _________________________               Andrew Z.  Schwartz, with  whom Foley, Hoag  & Eliot  was on               ___________________             ____________________          brief, for appellants.               Charles R. Bennett, Jr., with whom Paul S. Samson and Riemer               _______________________            ______________     ______          & Braunstein were on brief, for appellee Shawmut Bank.          ____________                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per  Curiam.   As  we  have  indicated before,  when  a                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          district  court produces  a scholarly  opinion  that reaches  the          correct result, a reviewing tribunal  should not rush to write at          length merely to put matters in its own  words.  See, e.g., In re                                                           ___  ____  _____          San Juan Dupont  Plaza Hotel Fire  Litig., 989  F.2d 36, 38  (1st          _________________________________________          Cir. 1993).  So it is here.  We agree  with the court below that,          in this case, (i) the mortgage at issue is not a valid "in globo"          mortgage under Louisiana law, and (ii) the bankruptcy court erred          in holding to the contrary.   We, therefore, summarily affirm the          judgment  below, for substantially the reasons articulated in the          district court's comprehensive and well-reasoned rescript, see In                                                                     ___ __          re  Microbiological Sciences, Inc.,  C.A. Nos.  92-0255, 92-0654,          __________________________________          slip. op. at 7-19 (D.R.I. Aug. 13, 1993).          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          ________   ___                                          2