Boysell Co. v. Colonial Coverlet Co.
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
1Opinion of the Court
DARR, District Judge.
The question is on the motion to require the "defendant to make answer to certain interrogatories which were objected to by the defendant and not answered. The interrogatories were in the nature of a discovery as to the character of the machines used by the defendant. 1
It is my judgment that the question is to be determined under the provisions of Rule 33, of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. It is true that the litigation started and the interrogatories propounded before these Rules came into effect. But I understand the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Paraffine Cos., Inc. v. WielandDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1927
- Koehring Co. v. Foote Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1927
3Cited by10 opinions
- Fleming v. BernardiDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1941
- Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1944
- Fleming v. BernardiDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1941
- Looper v. Colonial Coverlet Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1939
- Shrader v. ReedDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.