Legal Opinion

Robert Findlay Mfg. Co. v. Hygrade Lighting Fixture Co.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided April 19, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARVIN, District Judge.

This is an application for an order making Samuel Shapiro, Morris Berman, Harry Cohn, Samuel Cominsky, and the Reliance Metal Spinning & Stamping Company parties to this action, or in the alternative granting plaintiff leave to file a supplemental bill, for the purpose of making Samuel Shapiro, Morris Ber-man, Harry Cohn, and the Reliance Metal Spinning & Stamping Company parties to this action.

[ 1 ] The case has gone to a decree. Considerable testimony has been taken before a master. That record establishes clearly that the parties sought to be brought before the court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Root v. WoolworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
  3. Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land & Cattle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. Wells & Richardson Co. v. AbrahamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1906
  5. New Jersey Patent Co. v. SchaefferU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1908

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Overman Cushion Tire Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
  2. Steiner Sales Co. v. Darman Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API