Blatchley v. Securities and Exchange Comm

Full title: BLATCHLEY v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION et al

Court: Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Dec 18, 1946

157 F.2d 901 (1st Cir. 1946)

Opinion

No. 4202.

October 29, 1946. Rehearing Denied December 18, 1946.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maine; John A. Peters, Judge.

Proceeding between Harry C. Blatchley and the Securities and Exchange Commission and others. From an order denying a motion to remit a petition in nature of a bill of review theretofore filed in the court to the Securities and Exchange Commission for hearing thereon, Harry C. Blatchley appeals and the commission moves to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Thurman Arnold, of Washington, D.C. (Harry E. Burroughs, of Boston, Mass., of counsel), for appellant Blatchley.

Roger S. Foster, of Philadelphia, Pa., (Arnold Fortas, of Washington, D.C., and Abe Fortas, of Washington, D.C., of counsel), for S.E.C., appellee.

Leonard A. Pierce, of Portland, Me., Everett H. Maxcy, of Augusta, Me., and Charles A. Coolidge, of Boston, Mass., for New England Public Service Co., appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Harry C. Blatchley here appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, made orally on July 10, 1946, denying a motion to remit a petition in the nature of a bill of review, theretofore filed in the said court by Blatchley, to the Securities and Exchange Commission for hearing thereon. The bill of review sought to reopen a proceeding before the court instituted by the Commission under § 11(e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 803, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79k(e), for the enforcement of a certain plan of reorganization of New England Public Service Company. For the background, see our opinion in Harry C. Blatchley, Petitioner, 157 F.2d 894. Appellee New England Public Service Company moves to docket and dismiss the appeal. The motion must be granted for the reason that the order appealed from is interlocutory in character, and does not fall within any of the categories of interlocutory orders made appealable by 28 U.S.C.A. § 227.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.