New York, N. H. & H. R. v. Railway Employees' Department
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, District Judge
(after stating the fa,cts as above). 1. It appears from evidence produced by the defendants, under special appearance, that service was made upon some twenty of the defendants. The returns made by the officers making such service show that this was done on July 29 and 31, 1922. The subpoenas were duly returned to the court by indorsement and subsequent filing. In each instance such return was timely and within equity rule No. 12 (198 C. C. A. xxii, 115 C. C. A. xxii), cited by defendants. The directions in the subpoenas to the marshal as to what he is to do and within what time he is to do it…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Mechanical Appliance Co. v. CastlemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions Nos. 1 & 3U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1898
- Tri-City Central Trades Council v. American Steel FoundriesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916
- Dail-Overland Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1919
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.