Legal Opinion

Ford Motor Co. v. Hackart Construction Co.

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided June 27, 1956No. Civ. A. 169-55PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FORMAN, Chief Judge.

This interpleader action was begun by a complaint filed February 18, 1955, in which the United States was named a party defendant. The suit arose in the following fashion:

The defendant Hackart Construction Company, as general contractor, agreed with the plaintiff, the Ford Motor Company, to perform construction work at. the site of the plaintiff’s plant at Metuchen, New Jersey. Subsequently, the plaintiff found itself confronted with many claims to money which it owed Hackart and which totaled far in excess of the amount Hackart had yet to be paid.

This suit in interpleader…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Puget Sound Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
  3. United States v. UllmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
  5. Sunnyland Wholesale Furniture Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1952

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. L. C. ChapmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960
  2. Narragansett Bay Gardens, Inc. v. Grant Construction Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1959
  3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock of IndianaDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1963
  4. United States v. Henry's Bay View Inn., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
  5. SOUTH ADAMS SAVINGS BANK v. MartelDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API