General
O'BRIEN v. LASHAR et al.; SAME v. ANDERSON et al.
273 F. 521·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1921
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Source-anchored 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
O’BRIEN v. LASHAR et al. SAME v. ANDERSON et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 24, 1921.)
No. 226.
Appearance <5^10 — Participation by attorney in proceedings to entry of decree is general appearance.
Where defendants’ attorneys first appeared specially to enter a plea to the jurisdiction, and did not subsequently enter a formal general appearance, their participation in the suits to the entry of the final decrees dismissing the bills constituted a general appearance.
@=jFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Equity. Separate suits by James J. O’Brien against Walter B. Rashar and others and against Percy P. Anderson and others. From a decree dismissing the bills, with leave to amend, plaintiff appeals. On motion to strike defendants’ brief from the files.
Motion denied.
James J. O’Brien, in pro. per.
Arthur M. Marsh, of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellees Rashar and others.
William H. O’Hara, of Bridgeport, Conn., for appellee Fairfield Park Companies.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
December 12, 1919, the defendants’ attorneys appeared specially to enter a plea to the jurisdiction. They never subsequently entered a formal general appearance, hut they took part in the suits from that date down to the entry of final decrees dismissing the hills November 1, 1920. This constituted a general appearance. 4 C. J. 1333.
Motion denied.