Kreiger v. Lehigh Valley R.

E.D. New York

Kreiger v. Lehigh Valley R.

1 F.R.D. 601, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1680

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided September 11, 1939·No. No. 556·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ABRUZZO, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff has not the capacity to sue.

It is the opinion of this Court that the action is properly brought under Section 51, Title 45 of the United States Code Annotated. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, cannot be construed as modifying that statute. This motion is therefore denied.

The motion for a bill of particulars made simultaneously with the above motion is denied at this time with leave to renew the same after the defendant has filed an answer to the complaint.

Settle order on two (2) days’ notice.

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

ABRUZZO, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff has not the capacity to sue.

It is the opinion of this Court that the action is properly brought under Section 51, Title 45 of the United States Code Annotated. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, cannot be construed as modifying that statute. This motion is therefore denied.

The motion for a bill of particulars made simultaneously with the above motion is denied at this time with leave to renew the same after the defendant has filed an answer to the complaint.

Settle order on two (2) days’ notice.

Kreiger v. Lehigh Valley R., 1 F.R.D. 601, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1680 (E.D.N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

1 F.R.D. 601 (Kreiger v. Lehigh Valley R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related