Hodge v. United States Steel Corp.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On application to cross-examine complainant and affiants and to submit further affidavits.
1Opinion of the Court
Emery, V. 0.
Upon an application for preliminary injunction in this case defendants have, in answer to complainant’s bill and affidavits, filed an answer and affidavits, meeting complainant’s case on the merits of the application. The answer also contains an allegation that the suit is instituted for the purpose of extorting money; that it is illusory and not bona jide, and is an imposi*112tion on the court.' Affidavits are also filed by defendants which are claimed to aEord sufficient basis for further inquiry, by virtue of the prqcess of the court, into the bona fides of the suit. The defendants…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Gallup v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Johnson v. King-Richardson Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1930
- Bookman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
- Kehaya v. AxtonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Eshleman v. KeenanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.