1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 26 F.Supp.
  5. 26 F.Supp. 999 (1939)
 

MURPHY v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.

No. 159.

26 F.Supp. 999 (1939)

MURPHY v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

February 21, 1939.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. W. Rhodes, of New Castle, Pa., for plaintiff.

Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Carl E. Geuther, of Philadelphia, Pa., and James A. Chambers, of New Castle, Pa., for defendant.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This case was removed by defendant from the state court, where plaintiff had filed a statement of claim in an action of trespass under the Pennsylvania Practice Act. Under this Act, 12 P.S. § 412, no further pleadings were necessary in the case. Under Rule 81(c) of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, repleading is not necessary unless the court so orders. In our view, the statement of claim...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases