Legal Opinion
Townsend v. Boston & M. R. R.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided December 2, 1940No. 635, 636PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWEENEY, District Judge.
In these two cases, which are similar, the defendants have each filed combination motions (1) to dismiss, (2) to add'parties, (3) to strike, and (4) for a bill of particulars. Each of the motions cover the same points, and both will be disposed of together.
Motion to Dismiss.
The motion to dismiss for want of the jurisdictional amount of $3,000 is improperly directed since the plaintiffs do not rely on Section 24, Subsection (1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), for its jurisdictional basis, but, on the contrary, rely on Subsection (8) of the same section which…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Fleming v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1940
- American La France-Foamite Corporation v. American Oil Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pentland v. Dravo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1942
- Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1941
- Stucker v. RoselleDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
- Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1944
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.