Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Ingersoll
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided February 3, 1933No. 4778PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILKERSON, District Judge.
The motion to dismiss was based solely on the ground that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on tho federal court. No question was raised as to the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill to sustain tho prayer for equitable relief. And, aside from the allegations as to the requirements of Equity Rule 27 (28 USCA § 723), 1 the bill, if not denied, is sufficient to sustain the injunction.
If objection had been made to the generality of the allegations relating to compliance with Equity Rule 27 and the bill had been dismissed on that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Greenwood v. Freight Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Boesenberg v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- William J. Troup v. Harold F. McCartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Sachs v. Ohio Nat. Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Textron, Inc. v. American Woolen Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1954
- Marion Mortgage Co. v. EdmundsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.