Amsler Morton Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Third Circuit

Amsler Morton Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

226 F.2d 289, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 1955

Docket11719

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F.2d 289 (Amsler Morton Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) 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

Amsler Morton Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 226 F.2d 289, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari to a district court to review an interlocutory order of that court permitting a complaint to be amended by substituting as plaintiff the alleged principal of the party who originally filed the suit. That order is said to be beyond the court’s power on the theory that a new cause is introduced after the statute of limitations has run. Pursuant to *290 our practice where extraordinary writs are sought, we have examined this petition and its supporting brief to determine whether the petitioner has stated such a case for extraordinary relief that respondent should be required to answer.

Considerations which ultimately precluded extraordinary relief by mandamus -in Hazeltine Corp. v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 683, appear in limine here and are decisive against the petition for the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Cf. Kay Ferer, Inc., v. Hu-len, 8 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 146.

The petition will be denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari to a district court to review an interlocutory order of that court permitting a complaint to be amended by substituting as plaintiff the alleged principal of the party who originally filed the suit. That order is said to be beyond the court’s power on the theory that a new cause is introduced after the statute of limitations has run. Pursuant to *290 our practice where extraordinary writs are sought, we have examined this petition and its supporting brief to determine whether the petitioner has stated such a case for extraordinary relief that respondent should be required to answer.

Considerations which ultimately precluded extraordinary relief by mandamus -in Hazeltine Corp. v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 683, appear in limine here and are decisive against the petition for the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Cf. Kay Ferer, Inc., v. Hu-len, 8 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 146.

The petition will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 289, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amsler-morton-corporation-a-delaware-corporation-v-the-union-of-soviet-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack