Legal Opinion
Coyle v. Morrisdale Coal Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 6, 1922PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
The first question is purely formal: Should this be an action at law or a suit in equity? While, so far as I can see, nothing turns on it, except whether the pleadings should be reframed, it is pressed by the defendants in all the cases, and may make some difference in the scope of review on appeal. In any event, it must be answered.
At common law it is the general rule that the members of an unincorporated association may not sue at law one of their number on a contract between himself and them. McMahon v. Rauhr, 47 N. Y. 67; Bullard v. Kinney, 10 Cal. 60; Cheeny…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Westcott v. . FargoNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- McMahon v. . RauhrNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Coyle v. Archibald McNeil & Sons Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1922
- Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, No. 153Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Cheeny v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Coyle v. Duncan Spangler Coal Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1923
- Tidewater Coal Exchange, Inc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1927
- Read v. Tidewater Coal Exchange, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1922
- Lane v. UrgitusSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
- Lane v. UrgitusSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.