Legal Opinion

Pushy & Jones Co. v. Miller

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided April 30, 1894No. 153PublishedCited by 5 opinions

In Equity. Bill by the Pusey & Jones Company against Mary Ann Miller and Will W. Bierce.

1Opinion of the Court

WALES, District Judge.

This is a bill in Die nature of a bill of interpleader, by which ihe plaintiff seeks projection and relief from the conflicting demands of the defendants. The material facts in the case are these:

Mary Ann Miller, the executrix of Lewis Miller, and one of the defendants herein, luis brought an action at law in this court against the plaintiff to recover the sum of $3.000, which is alleged to lie due to the estate of Miller under the terms of a writ ten contract between him and the plaintiff, dated January 14, 1892, whereby the plaintiff had agreed to pay to Miller that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aspinwall, Manuf'g Co. v. GillUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
  2. De Witt v. . Elmira Nobles Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Curran v. BurdsallDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1883
  4. Clum v. BrewerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1855
  5. Dunham v. Indianapolis & St. L. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1876

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kahn v. GarvanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1920
  2. Klaber v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  3. Hayward & Clark v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1912
  4. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. National Enameling & Stamping Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1901
  5. Talbot v. Quaker State Oil Refining Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API