Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
John SPITLIS and Bessie Spitlis, his Wife, v. M. E. JENSEN, Receiver, 1934 — 69 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
General
John SPITLIS and Bessie Spitlis, his Wife, v. M. E. JENSEN, Receiver
69 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
John SPITLIS and Bessie Spitlis, his Wife, v. M. E. JENSEN, Receiver.
No. 5013.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 26, 1934.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion of W. J. Garvy, receiver of the Midland National Bank of Chicago, it is ordered that he he, and is hereby, substituted as party appellee in this cause in the place and stead of M. E. Jenson, formerly receiver of said hank. It is further ordered that Ryan, Condon & Livingston, of Chicago, 111., may file their appearance instantor as counsel for said appellee, W. J. Garvy, receiver. It is further ordered and adjudged that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with costs for want of prosecution; counsel for appellant not appearing nor making any objection thereto.