From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abrams v. Van Schaick

U.S.
Nov 19, 1934
293 U.S. 188 (1934)

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK.

No. 186.

Argued November 12, 1934. Decided November 19, 1934.

A judgment of a state court refusing to enjoin proceedings under a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional does not present a substantial federal question when the outcome of those proceedings, if pursued, and its effect upon the federal rights asserted by the complainant, are matters of conjecture. Appeal from 264 N.Y. 475, dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment, entered on remittitur, which reversed an injunction order of the Supreme Court of New York ( 150 Misc. 467) and denied the injunction.

Messrs. Samuel Untermyer, James M. Beck, and Edward Endelman submitted for appellants.

Mr. Morris L. Ernst, with whom Messrs. Lawrence S. Greenbaum and Benjamin Kaplan were on the brief, for Van Schaick, appellee.

Mr. Samuel Kramer for Silverberg, appellee-intervener.

By leave of Court, Mr. John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney General, and Mr. Henry Epstein, Solicitor General, filed a brief on behalf of the State of New York, as amicus curiae.


The Court of Appeals of the State of New York reversed an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court which enjoined the Superintendent of Insurance from making any payments for expenditures incurred in connection with plans of reorganization promulgated under Chapter 745 of the Laws of 1933 relating to guaranteed participating certificates sold by the New York Title and Mortgage Company. The motion for injunction, denied by the Court of Appeals, was made in advance of the promulgation of a plan by the Superintendent of Insurance applicable to the interests of the appellants. Whether, if a plan of reorganization is promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance it will be approved by the Court as required by the statute, or whether, if so approved, it will be opposed by certificate holders, or will receive the assent of the present appellants, or will operate to deprive them of any asserted constitutional right, are matters of conjecture.

The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Liverpool, N.Y. P.S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39; California v. San Pablo Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U.S. 75, 78; Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 449.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Abrams v. Van Schaick

U.S.
Nov 19, 1934
293 U.S. 188 (1934)
Case details for

Abrams v. Van Schaick

Case Details

Full title:ABRAMS ET AL. v . VAN SCHAICK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Nov 19, 1934

Citations

293 U.S. 188 (1934)

Citing Cases

West Coast Macaroni Mfg. Co. v. Brock

However, in both of these cases, known, established regulations under the Statutes in question were…

U.S. v. Martinez

The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it."…