In Re: Microbiologic v. McGaw ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          February 17, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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