Abraham Solomon v. Neisner Brothers, Inc

Third Circuit

Abraham Solomon v. Neisner Brothers, Inc

187 F.2d 735

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1951

Docket10355_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 F.2d 735 (Abraham Solomon v. Neisner Brothers, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraham Solomon v. Neisner Brothers, Inc, 187 F.2d 735 (3d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit by a tenant for alleged breach of contract on the part of the landlord to rebuild leased premises for the tenant following their destruction by accidental fire. The Trial Judge granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. M.D.Pa. 1950, 93 F.Supp. 310. The point involved is one of the liability of a Pennsylvania landlord to rebuild Pennsylvania premises for a Pennsylvania lessee. The state law governs; we have no federal question in the case. The District Court wrote a detailed and thoroughly considered opinion which discussed the problem in view of the Pennsylvania authorities. Repetition would add nothing to that discussion. In view of the thoroughly explained state of the local law upon the matter we think the Trial Judge was right and that our only proper course is to affirm the judgment.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit by a tenant for alleged breach of contract on the part of the landlord to rebuild leased premises for the tenant following their destruction by accidental fire. The Trial Judge granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. M.D.Pa. 1950, 93 F.Supp. 310. The point involved is one of the liability of a Pennsylvania landlord to rebuild Pennsylvania premises for a Pennsylvania lessee. The state law governs; we have no federal question in the case. The District Court wrote a detailed and thoroughly considered opinion which discussed the problem in view of the Pennsylvania authorities. Repetition would add nothing to that discussion. In view of the thoroughly explained state of the local law upon the matter we think the Trial Judge was right and that our only proper course is to affirm the judgment.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F.2d 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-solomon-v-neisner-brothers-inc-ca3-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack