Home Ins. v. Nobles
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity." On motion for preliminary injunction. The facts appear in the preceding case, 63 Fed. 641.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
When application for a preliminary injunction was first made, I declined to entertain it because the bill was, in my opinion, defective for want of a necessary jurisdictional averment. That defect has since been cured by an amendment, filed with notice and without objection, and thereupon the motion for preliminary injunction has been renewed. I have care*643fully considered all that the respeciive counsel have urged upon my attention, but deem it proper to abstain from any premature and unnecessary expression of opinion, and it must be understood that, in disposing of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Arlington Manuf'g Co.United States Circuit Court · 1888
- Williams v. McNeelyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1893
- Pott v. AltemusU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1894
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Woodward v. RaynorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Kentucky · 1902
- Demarest v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1919
- City of Sacramento v. Southern Pac. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1907
- Encyclopædia Britannica Co. v. Werner Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.