Findley v. F. D. Cummer & Son Co.

Third Circuit

Findley v. F. D. Cummer & Son Co.

109 F.2d 1015

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided January 3, 1940·No. No. 7208·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of the district court, 30 F.Supp. 884, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial and upon the authority of Second National Bank of Reading v. Yeager, 268 Pa. 167, 111 A. 159; Speier v. Michelson, 303 Pa. 66, 154 A. 127, and Philadelphia Record Co. v. Sweet, 124 Pa.Super. 414, 188 A. 631, the judgment appealed from is affirmed..

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

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of the district court, 30 F.Supp. 884, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial and upon the authority of Second National Bank of Reading v. Yeager, 268 Pa. 167, 111 A. 159; Speier v. Michelson, 303 Pa. 66, 154 A. 127, and Philadelphia Record Co. v. Sweet, 124 Pa.Super. 414, 188 A. 631, the judgment appealed from is affirmed..

Findley v. F. D. Cummer & Son Co., 109 F.2d 1015 (3d Cir. 1940).

Pincite

109 F.2d 1015 (Findley v. F. D. Cummer & Son Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related