Legal Opinion

MacDonald v. Winfield Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 1948No. Civ. A. No. 8708PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

This is a civil action based on breach of contract and tort. There are two defendants, both corporations — -Winfield (successor to Phoenix) and Virginia Metal Products (successor to Snead). The second defendant has moved to dismiss for failure to state a- cause of action.

Laying aside the question whether the facts set out in the complaint are enough to bring Snead into the tort case as a subsequent participant in -the program of fraud and coercion charged to Winfield, I am of the opinion that the cause of action for breach of contract by Snead is adequately stated.

The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
  2. American Preservers' Trust v. Taylor Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1891

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Morgan v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
  2. Newberg v. American Dryer CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Morgan v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
  4. Modern Globe, Inc. v. 1425 Lake Drive Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Norman Ackerman, Esquire v. Huston (In re J & B Delivery Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API