In re IRONCLAD MFG. CO. In re PIERSON

In re IRONCLAD MFG. CO. In re PIERSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. July 29, 1911.) Bankruptcy (§ 462) — Appellate Proceedings — Power to Grant Stay. Where an order of a District Court in bankruptcy has been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for review by an appeal or'petition to revise, an application for a stay to prevent action by a party pending the application must be made to the court, and cannot be granted by a judge. (Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. § 462. Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.] Petition to Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York in Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Ironclad Manufacturing Company, bankrupt. Petition by J. Fred Pierson to revise order of District Court. On motion for stay. Denied. Before WARD, Circuit Judge. For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — WARD, Circuit Judge,] WARD, Circuit Judge, If I were allowing an appeal, I could grant a stay; but the cause is already in the Circuit Court of Appeals by appeal, or petition to revise, or both, and an application for a stay would have to be made to the court. I have no power as a Circuit Judge to grant it. If I had, I would deny it, because in the absence of fraud the court has no right to interfere with the exercise of their legal rights as to collateral by pledgees.