Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works

Third Circuit

Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works

240 F. 1022, 153 C.C.A. 665, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2456

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1917

DocketNo. 2197

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 240 F. 1022 (Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works) 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

Armstrong Cork Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works, 240 F. 1022, 153 C.C.A. 665, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2456 (3d Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiff’s bill in pursuance of an opinion reported at (D. C.) 235 Fed. 458. In view of the important and far-reaching commercial questions raised in this case, we feel that they can better be approached and decided in this court after, full proofs and final hearing. Following our usual course in such a situation, we express no present opinion on those questions, and confine "ourselves to reversing the order made below dismissing the bill, and remanding the case, with directions to reinstate the bill, overrule the demurrer, without prejudice to raising the same questions on final hearing, and to proceed to final hearing. We might add that, in view of the possibility of bringing such matters as are here involved before the Federal Trade Commission, this or-dey is made without prejudice to the right of the parties while this bill is pending to apply for relief to that body, if it so desires.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the plaintiff’s bill in pursuance of an opinion reported at (D. C.) 235 Fed. 458. In view of the important and far-reaching commercial questions raised in this case, we feel that they can better be approached and decided in this court after, full proofs and final hearing. Following our usual course in such a situation, we express no present opinion on those questions, and confine "ourselves to reversing the order made below dismissing the bill, and remanding the case, with directions to reinstate the bill, overrule the demurrer, without prejudice to raising the same questions on final hearing, and to proceed to final hearing. We might add that, in view of the possibility of bringing such matters as are here involved before the Federal Trade Commission, this or-dey is made without prejudice to the right of the parties while this bill is pending to apply for relief to that body, if it so desires.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 F. 1022, 153 C.C.A. 665, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-cork-co-v-ringwalt-linoleum-works-ca3-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack