Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.

77 F. Supp. 51, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2615
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided March 31, 1948·No. Civil Action No. 6380·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BARD, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the additional authorities cited by counsel for the defendant at the reargument on defendant’s motion, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of the present action is improperly laid in this district, I am persuaded that my previous opinion, 72 F.Supp. 326, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, is inconsonant with the principles expressed by Judge Biggs, speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Dehne v. Hillman Inv. Co., 3 Cir. 110 F.2d 456. Inasmuch as the tort which is alleged as the basis for this action did not occur • in Pennsylvania, I think that under the Dehne decision I am bound to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

An order may be entered accordingly.

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

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp., 77 F. Supp. 51, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2615 (E.D. Pa. 1948).

77 F. Supp. 51 (Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herpst v. S. B. I. Liquidating Corp.
279 F. Supp. 928 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1968)
McGrath v. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.
170 F. Supp. 173 (D. Delaware, 1959)
Carlisle v. S. C. Loveland Co.
77 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)