Blast Furnace Appliances Co. v. Worth Bros.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
In Equity. Suit by the Blast Furnace Appliances Company against the Worth Bros. Company. On objections to interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, District Judge.
The ground of objection to the interrogatories, that the defendant is not required to answer, for the reason that oath to the answer has been waived by the bill, has been decided contrary to the defendant’s contentions in the case of Luten v. Camp et al., 221 Fed. 424, in which an opinion has been filed this day.
Referring to the specific objections to the interrogatories, the question is whether they seek discovery of facts and documents material to the support of the cause, or whether, on the contrary, they seek discovery concerning mere evidence of facts tending to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Luten v. CampDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1915
3Cited by8 opinions
- J. H. Day Co. v. Mountain City Mill Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1915
- Wolcott v. National Electric Signaling Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1916
- Batdorf v. Sattley Coin Handling Mach. Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1916
- Rodman Chemical Co. v. E. F. Houghton Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1916
- Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Brookville Glass & Tile Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.