MacDonald v. Winfield Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
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
- Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- American Preservers' Trust v. Taylor Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1891
3Cited by5 opinions
- Morgan v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
- Newberg v. American Dryer CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
- Morgan v. WellsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
- Modern Globe, Inc. v. 1425 Lake Drive Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1954
- Norman Ackerman, Esquire v. Huston (In re J & B Delivery Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982