Morgenthau v. Mifflin Chemical Corp.

Third Circuit

Morgenthau v. Mifflin Chemical Corp.

94 F.2d 550, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1938

DocketNos. 6362, 6363

StatusPublished

This text of 94 F.2d 550 (Morgenthau v. Mifflin Chemical Corp.) 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

Morgenthau v. Mifflin Chemical Corp., 94 F.2d 550, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these causes an application was made by a petition filed by the appellee to the end that this court should reconsider and vacate its order denying the appellee’s petition for a rehearing. After further extended argument by the parties, we have again considered these cases upon the whole record, and have also taken into consideration the testimony of certain witnesses, submitted by the appellee, given in the criminal proceeding entitled United States v. Mifflin Chemical Co. et al., 7523, March Term, 1937, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Though the testimony last referred to cannot be incorporated in the record of these cases,. Qualtop Beverages, Inc., v. McCampbell, 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 260; Yudelson v. Andrews, 3 Cir., 25 F.2d 80; Quitt v. Stone, 4 Cir., 46 F.2d 405, 408; Herbert v. Anstine, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 522, 555, none the less we have examined it as fully as if it had been incorporated therein.

After such consideration, our decisions heretofore made in these cases remain unchanged.

The petition filed by the appellee for reconsideration and vacation of our order denying the appellee’s petition for rehearing accordingly will be dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these causes an application was made by a petition filed by the appellee to the end that this court should reconsider and vacate its order denying the appellee’s petition for a rehearing. After further extended argument by the parties, we have again considered these cases upon the whole record, and have also taken into consideration the testimony of certain witnesses, submitted by the appellee, given in the criminal proceeding entitled United States v. Mifflin Chemical Co. et al., 7523, March Term, 1937, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Though the testimony last referred to cannot be incorporated in the record of these cases,. Qualtop Beverages, Inc., v. McCampbell, 2 Cir., 31 F.2d 260; Yudelson v. Andrews, 3 Cir., 25 F.2d 80; Quitt v. Stone, 4 Cir., 46 F.2d 405, 408; Herbert v. Anstine, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 522, 555, none the less we have examined it as fully as if it had been incorporated therein.

After such consideration, our decisions heretofore made in these cases remain unchanged.

The petition filed by the appellee for reconsideration and vacation of our order denying the appellee’s petition for rehearing accordingly will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F.2d 550, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgenthau-v-mifflin-chemical-corp-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack