Legal Opinion

Buggeln & Smith, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 7, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HULBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to file nunc pro tunc a demand for a jury trial.

The action is to recover damages and was commenced November 3, 1938. Issue was joined by the service of an answer on December 31, 1938. It contained no counterclaim and the pleadings were, therefore, closed.

Plaintiff assumed the right to amend as of course within 20 days and defendant appears to have accepted the amended complaint without objection and served its answer there to February 2, 1939.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the plaintiff may only amend his…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rogers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re Watauga Steam LaundryDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1947
  2. Munkacsy v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1942
  3. Wilson & Co. v. WardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1941
  4. Lehman v. BairIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
  5. O'Leary v. Liggett Drug Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1940

1 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