Hammond Bag & Paper Co. v. Bag & Machine Corp.

D. Delaware

Hammond Bag & Paper Co. v. Bag & Machine Corp.

56 F.2d 863, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085

CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware

DecidedApril 5, 1932

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 863 (Hammond Bag & Paper Co. v. Bag & Machine Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammond Bag & Paper Co. v. Bag & Machine Corp., 56 F.2d 863, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085 (D. Del. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is an action at law to recover threefold damages under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act § 4 and Sherman Anti-Trust Act § 7 (15 USCA § 15), alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff.

The matter now before the court is defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars in such an action. The Conformity Act (28 USCA § 724) and the state eases do not deprive the federal court of the right to exercise its discretion in the matter. Upon the authority of Locker v. American Tobacco Co. (D. C.) 194 F. 232; Alaska S. S. Co. v. Katzeek, 16 F.(2d) 210 (C. C. A. 9); and Harry Prochaska, Inc. v. Consolidated-Lithographing Corp. (D. C.) 51 F.(2d) 362, defendant’s motion will be granted to the extent indicated at the hearing.

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

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is an action at law to recover threefold damages under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act § 4 and Sherman Anti-Trust Act § 7 (15 USCA § 15), alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff.

The matter now before the court is defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars in such an action. The Conformity Act (28 USCA § 724) and the state eases do not deprive the federal court of the right to exercise its discretion in the matter. Upon the authority of Locker v. American Tobacco Co. (D. C.) 194 F. 232; Alaska S. S. Co. v. Katzeek, 16 F.(2d) 210 (C. C. A. 9); and Harry Prochaska, Inc. v. Consolidated-Lithographing Corp. (D. C.) 51 F.(2d) 362, defendant’s motion will be granted to the extent indicated at the hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 863, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-bag-paper-co-v-bag-machine-corp-ded-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack