337 U.S. 903 (1949)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court


337 U.S. 903

In the Matter of ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION, Electric Bond and Share Company.
No. 610, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 16, 1949

The petitions for a stay are denied. [ Matter of Electric Power & Light Corp. 337 U.S. 903 (1949) ]

Page 337 U.S. 903 , 904

Messrs. Samuel Becker and Nathan B. Kogan, for petitioners.

Solicitor General Perlman and Mr. Roger S. Foster, for respondent Securities & Exchange Commission.

Mr. Daniel James, for respondent Electric Power & Light Corp.

Mr. John F. MacLane, for respondent Electric Bond & Share Co.

Mr. Percival E. Jackson, for respondents of certain preferred stock committee.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER with whom Mr. Justice MURPHY joins, dissenting.

This is a motion to stay the execution of a plan of dissolution of Electric Power & Light Corporation as ordered by the Securities and Exchange Commission under 11(b) of the Public Utility Act of 1935, 15 U. S.C.A. 79K(b). The Commission brought proceedings to enforce its order before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and that court, having found the pl n 'fair and equitable,' ordered its enforcement. That court also denied motions for a stay of the execution of the plan. The petitioners took appeals from the order of enforcement to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and asked for a stay of the execution of the plan pending appeal. It is conceded that such appeals would become nugatory if before their disposition the plan be executed. The Commission, naturally enough therefore in its memorandum in opposition to the motions for stay before this Court, indicates that whether the requested stay should be granted or withheld turns on 'the merit or lack of merit in the appeals.'

Mr. Justice REED, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.

Dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER in which Mr. Justice MURPHY joins.

But the merits of the appeals before the Court of Appeals should be determined by that court and not here. If, on the motions for stay, that court had concluded that [337 U.S. 903 , 905]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.