Legal Opinion
Otis Elevator Co. v. Arey-Hauser Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 26, 1938No. 17074PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
Leave was given to file briefs. Pending their submission, we were asked to grant an imparlance to afford parties an opportunity to reach an agreement. This has had no result and the withheld briefs have now been submitted with a request for a ruling.
The action, although in form replevin, is really an amicable action to have determined the right of the plaintiff to- recover a set of elevators which it had installed in an apartment house belonging to the defendant, and subject to a mortgage held by the Pennsylvania Company, trustee for bondholders. The installation .…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Holt v. HenleySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Central Lithograph Co. v. Eatmor Chocolate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Detroit Steel Cooperage Co. v. Sistersville Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Pennsylvania Chocolate Co. v. Hershey Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Ridgway Dynamo & Engine Co. v. WerderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Medical Tower Corporation v. Otis Elevator Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Caparra Dairy, Inc. v. Tribunal de ContribucionesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947
- Commercial Inv. Trust Co. v. MinonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Consolidated Solubles Co. v. Consolidated Fisheries Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1954
- Llamas v. District Court of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.