Huck Mfg. Co. v. Townsend Co.

W.D. Pennsylvania

Huck Mfg. Co. v. Townsend Co.

101 F. Supp. 530, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2073

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 11, 1951

DocketCiv. A. No. 9808

StatusPublished

This text of 101 F. Supp. 530 (Huck Mfg. Co. v. Townsend Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huck Mfg. Co. v. Townsend Co., 101 F. Supp. 530, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2073 (W.D. Pa. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

BURNS, District Judge.

This Court adheres to the rule that motions for change of venue should be granted only when it is clearly established that, in the interests of justice, trial of a case should be had in a district other than that where suit is brought and venue is proper. The instant case appears to present one of the unusual situations where the motion should receive favorable consideration. The witnesses of neither plaintiff nor defendant reside at or near the Western District of Pennsylvania. The corporate residence of defendant became this district only by virtue of a merger in January, 1951. The witnesses of defendant, as well as the plant manufacturing the items in question, are located at or near Los Angeles. The additional inconvenience to plaintiff, if the case were to1 be tried in California, would appear to be insubstantial, while the convenience to defendant would be appreciably greater.

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

BURNS, District Judge.

This Court adheres to the rule that motions for change of venue should be granted only when it is clearly established that, in the interests of justice, trial of a case should be had in a district other than that where suit is brought and venue is proper. The instant case appears to present one of the unusual situations where the motion should receive favorable consideration. The witnesses of neither plaintiff nor defendant reside at or near the Western District of Pennsylvania. The corporate residence of defendant became this district only by virtue of a merger in January, 1951. The witnesses of defendant, as well as the plant manufacturing the items in question, are located at or near Los Angeles. The additional inconvenience to plaintiff, if the case were to1 be tried in California, would appear to be insubstantial, while the convenience to defendant would be appreciably greater.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. Supp. 530, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huck-mfg-co-v-townsend-co-pawd-1951.