Low v. McMaster
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
In Equity. Bill for Injunction by Arthur B. Low and others against Henry McMaster, doing business as the Presto Patents Company. On motion to dismiss.
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
The motion is based upon the averment that the plaintiffs have set forth in their bill of complaint no cause o£ action. This is because the cause of action stated does not belong to the plaintiffs. More particularly the basis of the motion is *236that there are three causes of action set forth, only one of which belongs to the plaintiffs. In still other words, the position of the counsel for defendant is that the bill is multifarious. This is because, not merely that more than one cause of action is sought to be incorporated in one bill (which it is admitted does not of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Brown v. Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Huber v. Myers Sanitary DepotU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
- Kaiser v. BortelU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1908
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. HudnallDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1922
- International Organization v. Red Jacket Consol. Coal &. Coke Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1927
- Komenarsky v. BrodeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Radio Corporation of America v. Lehr Auto Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Colonial Trust Co. v. Chaplin-Fulton Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1920