Loose v. Hartford Pulp Plaster Corp.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Loose v. Hartford Pulp Plaster Corp.

159 F. 318, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5015

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 1, 1908

DocketNo. 1,247

StatusPublished

This text of 159 F. 318 (Loose v. Hartford Pulp Plaster Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loose v. Hartford Pulp Plaster Corp., 159 F. 318, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5015 (circtdct 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

While the first ground of the demurrer is very broad, the question raised under it is whether the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law and so cannot resort to equity. The bill is apparently framed upon different theories of liability. There is an evident desire to hold the defendant corporation in one way if it should not be liable in another. Still, considering the allegations as a whole, I think they should be treated as stating a cause of action based upon an agreement by the defendant corporation to assume the obligations of the defendants Hills and Jackson under their contract with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could not obtain the benefit of this agreement at law, but they could in equity. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Dancel, 119 Fed. 692, 56 C. C. A. 300; Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co., 144 Fed. 679, 75 C. C. A. 481.

The second ground of demurrer is want of the necessary diversity of citizenship. The parties designated as plaintiffs and defendants in the record are, however, respectively citizens of different states, and nothing is shown in the bill which requires the court to rearrange them and oust itself of jurisdiction.

The third ground of demurrer is based upon the statute of frauds. But it does not appear that the promise referred to was not in writing.

The demurrer to the bill is overruled.

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

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

While the first ground of the demurrer is very broad, the question raised under it is whether the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law and so cannot resort to equity. The bill is apparently framed upon different theories of liability. There is an evident desire to hold the defendant corporation in one way if it should not be liable in another. Still, considering the allegations as a whole, I think they should be treated as stating a cause of action based upon an agreement by the defendant corporation to assume the obligations of the defendants Hills and Jackson under their contract with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could not obtain the benefit of this agreement at law, but they could in equity. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Dancel, 119 Fed. 692, 56 C. C. A. 300; Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co., 144 Fed. 679, 75 C. C. A. 481.

The second ground of demurrer is want of the necessary diversity of citizenship. The parties designated as plaintiffs and defendants in the record are, however, respectively citizens of different states, and nothing is shown in the bill which requires the court to rearrange them and oust itself of jurisdiction.

The third ground of demurrer is based upon the statute of frauds. But it does not appear that the promise referred to was not in writing.

The demurrer to the bill is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F. 318, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loose-v-hartford-pulp-plaster-corp-circtdct-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack