In Re: Microbiologic v. McGaw

Case Date: 02/17/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-2035



February 17, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 93-2035
IN RE MICROBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, INC., ETC.,

Debtor.
____________________

MICROBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, INC.,

Debtor,

v.

KENNETH A. McGAW, ETC., ET AL.,

Appellants.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

_________________________

Andrew Z. Schwartz, with whom Foley, Hoag & Eliot was on
___________________ ____________________
brief, for appellants.
Charles R. Bennett, Jr., with whom Paul S. Samson and Riemer
_______________________ ______________ ______
& Braunstein were on brief, for appellee Shawmut Bank.
____________

_________________________

_________________________


Per Curiam. As we have indicated before, when a
Per Curiam.
___________

district court produces a scholarly opinion that reaches the

correct result, a reviewing tribunal should not rush to write at

length merely to put matters in its own words. See, e.g., In re
___ ____ _____

San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st
_________________________________________

Cir. 1993). So it is here. We agree with the court below that,

in this case, (i) the mortgage at issue is not a valid "in globo"

mortgage under Louisiana law, and (ii) the bankruptcy court erred

in holding to the contrary. We, therefore, summarily affirm the

judgment below, for substantially the reasons articulated in the

district court's comprehensive and well-reasoned rescript, see In
___ __

re Microbiological Sciences, Inc., C.A. Nos. 92-0255, 92-0654,
__________________________________

slip. op. at 7-19 (D.R.I. Aug. 13, 1993).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________ ___


2