Legal Opinion

Sauter v. First Nat. Bank of Philadelphia

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided July 1, 1925No. 3528PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlschuler, Circuit Judge

(after stating tlie facts as above). It is contended for appellant that the pleading of appellee bank was not a cross-bill or counterclaim under rule 30 of the federal Equity Rules, which is in part, “the answer must state in short and simple form any counterclaim arising out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit, and may, without cross-bill, set out any set-off or counterclaim against the plaintiff which might bo the subject of an independent suit in equity against him, a.nd such set-off or counterclaim so set up shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Skinner & Eddy Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Guaranty Trust and Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs and Melrose RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  4. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1893
  5. Kishi v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1924

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United Motors Service, Inc. v. Tropic-Aire, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
  2. Clifton v. TombCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1927
  3. Broxham v. Borden's Farm Products Co. of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
  4. Farr v. DatoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
  5. Informed Consent Action Network v. National Institutes of HealthDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API