James S. Kreager and Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Ralph L. Schiffer, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morrie Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company

Third Circuit

James S. Kreager and Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Ralph L. Schiffer, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morrie Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company

358 F.2d 308, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6486

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1966

Docket15430

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 308 (James S. Kreager and Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Ralph L. Schiffer, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morrie Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James S. Kreager and Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Ralph L. Schiffer, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morrie Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company, 358 F.2d 308, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6486 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants were invited by this court to amend the defective complaint in order that it might conform with the provisions of Section 1332(c), Title 28, U.S.C., by supplying allegations in respect to the principal places of business of the corporate parties necessary for the maintenance of diversity jurisdiction. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants informed us that he does not desire to amend the complaint. Thereafter, we entered an order allowing the necessary amendments to be made by any party to the cause to the end that the case would not have to be retried. On March 21, 1966, the defendant-appellee, Progress Manufacturing Company, by its counsel, filed an affidavit which amends adequately the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. We find, therefore, that jurisdiction now exists. 28U.S.C. § 1653.

An examination of the record in this case and consideration of the arguments of the parties convinces us that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants were invited by this court to amend the defective complaint in order that it might conform with the provisions of Section 1332(c), Title 28, U.S.C., by supplying allegations in respect to the principal places of business of the corporate parties necessary for the maintenance of diversity jurisdiction. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants informed us that he does not desire to amend the complaint. Thereafter, we entered an order allowing the necessary amendments to be made by any party to the cause to the end that the case would not have to be retried. On March 21, 1966, the defendant-appellee, Progress Manufacturing Company, by its counsel, filed an affidavit which amends adequately the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. We find, therefore, that jurisdiction now exists. 28U.S.C. § 1653.

An examination of the record in this case and consideration of the arguments of the parties convinces us that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 308, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-s-kreager-and-mercu-ray-industries-inc-v-ralph-l-schiffer-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack