Nachod & United States Signal Co. v. Automatic Signal Corp.
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
HINCKS, District Judge.
On October 15, 1938, I entered two orders: (1) an order dismissing as to the Signal Corporation for lack of venue, and (2) an order dismissing the bill on the ground that the Signal Corporation was an indispensable party. The plaintiff never appealed from the order dismissing, as to Signal; it did, however, appeal from the order dismissing for lack of an indispensable party and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594.
But before this court had entered its order on the mandate the case of Neirbo v. Bethlehem…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Ex Parte Sibbald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- In Re Metropolitan Trust Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Travis County v. King Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
- Fleming v. MillerDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1942
- United States v. FaillaDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1958
- McGinn v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1942
- Cavallo v. Agwilines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.