Legal Opinion
Rothenberg v. H. Rothstein & Sons
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 5, 1949No. 7294PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GANEY, District Judge.
This is a motion for a new trial and for entrance of judgment in accordance with a motion for a directed verdict.
At the oral argument, counsel for the defendant contended that the motion for a new trial was not being pressed and he was *212proceeding solely on his motion for directed verdict under Rule 50,1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
The sole ground relied upon by the defendant is that the Statute of Frauds, 69 P.S.Pa. § 42, was not satisfied. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Frauds in his answer, but no mention whatsoever was made to it at the trial;…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Bolan v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- A. M. Webb & Co. v. Robert P. Miller Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- Blair v. CullomCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Straesser-Arnold Co. v. Franklin Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1925
3Cited by2 opinions
- C. Albert Sauter Co., Inc. v. Richard S. Sauter Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
- Rothenberg v. H. Rothstein & SonsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950