Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Merrit-Chapman & Scott Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 3, 1961No. Civ. A. No. 5779Published

1Opinion of the Court

FOLLMER, District Judge.

Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Automatic) was a subcontractor of Raff, who in turn was a subcontractor of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as Merritt-Chapman). Plaintiff instituted its action against Merritt-Chapman (the prime contractor) and the other defendants (sureties), on a Miller Act Bond. Judgment having been entered against it, plaintiff now seeks a new trial.

The facts in the case and the difficulties encountered by this Court in developing the same are fully set forth in the Memorandum filed February 20, 1961. The case was tried without a jury,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. McGregor Architectural Iron Co. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. McGregor Architectural Iron Co. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Rowlik v. GreenfieldDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. United States ex rel. John T. Evanick & Co. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Stafford v. Roadway Transit Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API