Legal Opinion
Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided July 12, 1946No. Civil Action No. 365PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
1. Defendant’s application to amend its answer is not timely. At the time suit was commenced, over two years ago, PX. A and B to the complaint disclosed the transfer of assets; at the trial of the separate issues defendant examined plaintiff at length on the circumstances surrounding the transfer. In short, defendant could have challenged the validity of the assignment of the contract in suit for failure of notice to defendant in its original answer or at the trial. Moreover, no reason is advanced why defendant did not do this. Under such circumstances leave to amend…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Devlin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Rochester Lantern Co. v. Stiles & Parker Press Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- United States Ex Rel. Brensilber v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Friedman v. Transamerica Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fox-Greenwald Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Markowitz Bros., Inc., Continental Casualty Co., Blake Construction Co., Inc., United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951
- State Ex Rel. Pennsylvania Transformer Division v. Electric City Supply Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- Kaplan v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.