Legal Opinion

Kent v. Hanlin

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1940No. Civ. A. No. 746PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARD, District Judge.

The complainant seeks a summary judgment in the sum of $900 with interest from the date the sum was allegedly due. This claim represents the amount of an assessment against the defendant as alleged owner of 90 shares of stock in the Chattanooga National Bank.

The essential averment- in the complaint is that the defendant was owner of the 90 shares at the date of the assessment. The corresponding portion of the answer is to the effect that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, the defendant was never the owner of the 90 shares, but was owner of 450 shares of the stock…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Saunders v. HigginsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Albert Dickinson Co. v. Mellos Peanut Co. Of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
  2. United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
  3. Chemical Foundation, Inc. v. Universal-Cyclops Steel Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Russell v. Barnes FoundationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Brady v. Waterman S. S. Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API