John A. Roebling's Sons Co. of California v. Kinnicutt
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by the John A. Roebling’s Sons Company of California ¿gainst G. Hermann Kinnicutt and others. On motion to dismiss bill. The complaint alleges that: (1) Plaintiff is a California corporation. (2) Kinnicutt, Bacon, Kissel, and Stiller, copartners doing business as Kissel, Kinnicutt & Co. (hereinafter called Kissel), and Hepburn, Hiñe, and Mainland, The trustees, and Ilendee, are citizens of Now York and residents within the Southern District.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by the John A. Roebling’s Sons Company of California ¿gainst G. Hermann Kinnicutt and others. On motion to dismiss bill. The complaint alleges that: (1) Plaintiff is a California corporation. (2) Kinnicutt, Bacon, Kissel, and Stiller, copartners doing business as Kissel, Kinnicutt & Co. (hereinafter called Kissel), and Hepburn, Hiñe, and Mainland, The trustees, and Ilendee, are citizens of Now York and residents within the Southern District. The amount involved is jurisdictional. Idaho Kailway, Tight & Power Company (hereinafter called Kailway) is a Maine corporation, having…
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). 1. As-it is not alleged that either Hepburn or Hine was a subscriber, the bill must be.dismissed as to each of them individually.
[1] 2. It is clear that, while the relief sought is a money judgment, the bill is for a discovery. The distinction between law and equity is substantial, and not technical, as urged by plaintiff (Judicial Code, § 267; Comp. St. 1916, § '1244), although mere matters of procedure are now regulated with desirable elasticity (Act March 3, 1915, 38 Stat. 956). , In the United States courts, examinations before trial, in actions at law,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hale v. AllinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Pollard v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Wehrman v. ConklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Coit v. Gold Amalgamating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Van Norden v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bailey v. Texas Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
- Kornblum v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929