Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.
This text of 77 F. Supp. 51 (Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 F. Supp. 51, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlisle-v-kelly-pile-foundation-corp-paed-1948.