Legal Opinion
S. S. Hepworth Co. v. Western States Mach. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 31, 1944PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
Western argues that subdivision (h) of rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, is an obstacle to consideration of the motion. The ground assigned for the contention is that (as it says) by delay Hepworth has waived its right to object to the sufficiency of the sixth or of the seventh defense or of paragraph 2 of the latter.
By notice of November 19, 1943, Hep-worth moved to strike the seventh defense or, if that be not done, to strike the second paragraph thereof. The matter came before Judge Leibell and, except for striking…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. FlanaganDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1939
- Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. GoldsteinDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1942
- Lucking v. DelanoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. Central States Theatre Corp.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1957