Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. Eastman Kodak Co.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided December 18, 1956No. Civ. No. 18951Published

1Opinion of the Court

TOLIN, District Judge;

Diversity of citizenship is the sole jurisdictional basis for prosecution of this replevin action in this Federal Court.

*338Plaintiff purchased certain unexposed motion picture film from defendant Eastman Kodak Company. The cost of having the color film developed was included in the purchase price and in due course plaintiff delivered the film to defendant Eastman Kodak Company for processing. The film in question is part of a larger footage intended to be used in preparation of a motion picture story. When the particular portion involved in suit had been processed,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Franklin v. Mortgage Guaranty & Security Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
  2. Cal. Grape Control Bd., Ltd. v. Boothe Fruit Co.California Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API