Legal Opinion
Cone v. New Britain Mach. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided July 5, 1927No. 4615PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
This case was brought up on appeal, hut under the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936), is to be treated as a proceeding in error. The record is appropriate to a revision at law, and we assume that a writ of error is the appropriate remedy. The ease involves the sufficiency of the service of a summons, the return thereon being quashed on the ground that the defendant was not engaged in such business in the state as made it amenable to the service of process therein.
The defendant is a Connecticut corporation, with its factory and executive offices in New Britain,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
- Vilter Mfg. Co. v. RolaffCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- Aeolian Co. v. FischerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Gray Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
- Haight v. Viking Pump Co. of DelawareDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1939
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.