Legal Opinion

American Voting Mach. Corp. v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 18, 1933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

This motion is denied.

I. Under Equity Rule 29 (2SUSCA§ 723), I can only entertain a motion to dismiss the complaint for infirmities appearing on the face thereof or on the complaint .as amplified by such bill of particulars and annexed exhibits as plaintiffs may have been ordered to file. Cf. my opinion in Ussesa Sales Company v. Josam Manufacturing Company et al., 2 F. Supp. 196, dated January 17, 1933. On such a motion issues of fact cannot be considered. They must be raised by answer. E. B. Badger Company v. Arnold, 282 F. 115 (C. C. A. 1).

A motion for summary…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
  3. Wallace v. HolmesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1871
  4. New York Scaffolding Co. v. WhitneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
  5. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Electric Railway Specialty Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1896

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Miami Bridge Co. v. Miami Beach Railway Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1943
  2. Freedman v. FriedmanDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API