Legal Opinion

United States Radiator Corp. v. Doody

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 12, 1933No. 7833PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This motion is based upon the double ground of want of equitable jurisdiction and the lack of jurisdiction in this court to entertain the bill. The first ground is very plausibly presented. The motive and purpose of the bill is merely to obtain a mora-: torium. Whatever might be urged to show that a moratorium purpose does not confer jurisdiction in equity, the question' is no longer an open one. The well-known Pusey & Jones Case, 261 U. S. 491, 43 S. Ct. 454, 67 L. Ed. 763, supplies us with the true doctrine. Want of jurisdiction because of the absence of equitable…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanssenSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Randall v. Becton-Dickinson Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Corcoran v. Royal Development Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  2. Corcoran v. Royal Development Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API