Legal Opinion
Smith v. Farley
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 23, 1936PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HULBERT, District Judge.
The defendants appearing specially moved to dismiss the bill of complaint, the Postmaster General upon the ground that the venue was improper, and the Postmaster at New York, in the event that such objection is sustained for the absence of an indispensable party.
All of the parties reside, and the defendants were served with the subpoenas, in the City of New York, within the jurisdiction of this court.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, under the trade name of “Vitalized Water Filter Company”, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of devices termed “Vitilors”…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Butterworth v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Rood v. GoodmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
- Senitha v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Wheeler v. FarleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mary Martinez v. Fred A. Seaton, as Secretary of the Interior of the United States, and the Southern Ute TribeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1961
- Scientific Mfg. Co. v. WalkerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
- Lazar v. BensonDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1957
- American Dealers Service, Inc. v. GoldmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Viking Press, Inc. v. GoldmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.