Legal Opinion

Leaver v. K. & L. Box & Lumber Co.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 19, 1925No. 1466PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KERRIGAN, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant and the Eby Machinery Company to permit the machinery company to intervene in the case as a third party defendant. The plaintiffs do not contest the right of the machinery company to intervene, but point out that on the face of the motion an intention is disclosed to file a counterclaim or cross-complaint, setting up matters not legally connected with the case made by the bill and unavailable to the defendant. They therefore urge that, if leave to intervene he granted, it should be duly limited. This presents the same question which…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Renfro Bros. v. Goetter, Weil & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  2. Allington v. Shevlin-Hixon Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1924
  3. Atlas Underwear Co. v. Cooper Underwear Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1913
  4. Rhinehart v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1917
  5. Ehrenstrom v. PhillipsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1910

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1954
  2. Whittaker v. Brictson Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
  3. Monticello Building Corp. v. Monticello Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
  4. United States v. Columbia Gas & Electric CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1939
  5. United States v. Bendix Home Appliances, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1949

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

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

Powered by the Exa API