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

56 F.2d 863, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085
District Court, D. Delaware·Decided April 5, 1932·No. No. 2·Published

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

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

56 F.2d 863 (Hammond Bag & Paper Co. v. Bag & Machine Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alaska S. S. Co. v. Katzeek
16 F.2d 210 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
Locker v. American Tobacco Co.
194 F. 232 (S.D. New York, 1912)