American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company

76 F.2d 1002
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 1, 1935
Docket313
StatusPublished

This text of 76 F.2d 1002 (American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, 76 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1935).

Opinion

76 F.2d 1002 (1935)

AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, Defendant.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Appellees.

No. 313.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 1, 1935.

Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Samuel Seabury, Charles Dickerman Williams, and William G. Mulligan, Jr., all of New York City, of counsel), for City of New York.

Miller, Boston & Owen, of New York City (Carl. M. Owen and Mark F. Hughes, both of New York City, of counsel), for receiver of Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Hughes, Schurman & Dwight, of New York City (Charles E. Hughes, Jr., and Allen S. Hubbard, both of New York City, of counsel), for receiver of Manhattan Ry. Co.

Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed, of New York City. (Edwin S. S. Sunderland, Chester F. Leonard, and Frederick Sheffield, all of New York City, of counsel), for Guaranty T. Co.

Charles Franklin, of New York City (Edward J. Schmuck and Daniel Cook, both of New York City, of counsel), for Manhattan Ry. Co.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

*1003 PER CURIAM.

Decree (10 F. Supp. 512) affirmed on opinion below.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 F.2d 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-brake-shoe-foundry-company-v-interborough-rapid-transit-company-ca2-1935.