Legal Opinion

Aeroil Burner Co. v. Littleford

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 20, 1926Published

1Opinion of the Court

THACHER, District Judge.

Upon motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the person, jurisdictional facts may be controverted, although alleged in the bill of complaint. Miller v. Minerals Separation, Ltd. (D. C.) 275 F. 380. The question cannot be presented by answer, because that would waive it. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 237. If within the rule in Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U. S. 723, 35 S. Ct. 458, 59 L. Ed. 808, Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 116 F. 641, and Cutler-Hammer Co. v. Curtis & Carhart (C. C. A.) 296 F. 117,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Harkness v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1902
  4. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co. v. Curtis & Carhart, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  5. Miller v. Minerals Separation Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API