Legal Opinion
Seneca Falls MacHine Company v. Paul C. McBeth and Paul C. McBeth Jr., Individually, and T/a McBeth MacHinery Company
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 28, 1966No. 15665_1PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
Jurisdiction in this suit is based on diversity. The defendants, the MeBeths, a partnership, were sales agents for the plaintiff, Seneca Falls Machine Company, a manufacturer of machines. Seneca brought the suit to recover the purchase price of machines sold by Seneca to the MeBeths for delivery to customers. The MeBeths admitted the validity of Seneca’s claims but set up two counterclaims, each denied by Seneca. The case was tried to the court. The trial judge found against the MeBeths on the first counterclaim but for them on the second. See Seneca…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Auten v. AutenNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Cummings v. Kelling Nut Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Helmig v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Seneca Falls Machine Co. v. McBethDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
3Cited by11 opinions
- Daset Mining Corp. v. Industrial Fuels Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Moorhouse v. Boeing Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Emor, Inc. v. Cyprus Mines Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Samuel B. Slaughter, Jr. v. The Philadelphia National Bank v. Peoples National Bank of Camden CountyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Geib v. Alan Wood Steel Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.