Abrams v. Van Schaick/Opinion of the Court
|←Abrams v. Van Schaick||Abrams v. Van Schaick
Opinion of the Court
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 & 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, New York & Philadelphia S.S.C.o. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39, 5 S.Ct. 352, 28 L.Ed. 899; People of State of California v. San Pablo & Trulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747; Lieutenant Colonel Daniel C. Stearns v. Brigadier General George H. Wood, 236 U.S. 75, 78, 35 S.Ct. 229, 59 L.Ed. 475; City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 449, 50 S.Ct. 360, 74 L.Ed. 950.
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).|