Murphy v. Arrow Steamship Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WELSH, District Judge.
This is a motion of defendant-respondent, Arrow Steamship Company, Inc., to dismiss or to set aside service of process. Said motion is based upon the contentions: 1. Defendant-respondent was not doing business in this district and 2. service of process on B. H. Sobelman, Inc., on February 25, 1954 was not authorized by appointment or law.
With these contentions we cannot agree.(a) The facts, we think, are sufficient to establish that defendant-respondent was doing business in this District. Vessels owned by the defendant-respondent stopped at Philadelphia or vicinity once…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Murphy v. International Freighting CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1960
- Thyssen Steel Corp. v. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Granite Chemical Corp. v. Northeast Coal & Dock Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 1966
- Vic. Car'rs v. Hawkins, Cir. J. & CubeloHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
- Amicale Industries, Inc. v. S.S. RantumDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.