Legal Opinion
United States v. McNinch
District Court, E.D. South Carolina
Decided February 15, 1956No. Civ. A. No. 4859PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TIMMERMAN, Chief Judge.
I have for consideration defendants’ motions to dismiss this action. The motion of Howard A. McNinch and Rosalie McNinch and the motion of Garis P. Zeigler are both made upon the same ground, that the complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants for which relief can be granted.
The complaint alleges substantially the following facts: The defendant Howard A. McNinch operated a business known as The Home Comfort Company which *712liad for its purpose the alteration, repair and improvement of homes. The defendant Rosalie McNinch was secretary, of the business, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hobbs v. McLeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Milliken v. BarrowU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1895
- United States v. ByronDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1915
- United States v. TiegerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1954
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. McNinchCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
- United States v. ToeplemanDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1956
- United States v. Howard A. McNinch D/B/A the Home Comfort Company, Rosalie McNinch and Garis P. Zeigler, Frederick L. Toepleman, and Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, and Cross-Appellant. Cato Bros., Incorporated, Wilfred R. Cato, William R. Cato, and Magie L. Dunn(nee: Magie L. Stone) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957