Kryptok Co. v. Haussmann & Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Suit by the Kryptok Company against Haussmann & Co. On motion by defendant to dismiss bill for want of prosecution and petition by plaintiff for leave to file a supplemental bill.
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
Before the actual awarding of the writ of injunction preliminary until hearing in the above case, the attention of the court has been called to the fact that no formal disposition has been made of either the motion to dismiss the bill or the application to file a supplemental bill which were discussed and considered with the motions for the preliminary injunction in the above case and a similar motion in the case of the same plaintiff against another defendant.
Preliminary injunctions were awarded because the prima facie right thereto of the plaintiff could not be…
2Cited by7 opinions
- City of Texarkana v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939
- Bowles v. SenderowitzDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
- Davis v. Pensioners Protective Ass'nSupreme Court of Colorado · 1943
- Parker Pen Co. v. Rex Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.