Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke

Second Circuit

Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke

157 F.2d 849

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 1946

DocketNo. 68, Docket 20333

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 157 F.2d 849 (Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke, 157 F.2d 849 (2d Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants Radtke, Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., and Leonard Day, are charged with conspiring with the Radtke Patents Corp. to deprive the plaintiff of its asserted rights to a patent in a complaint which set forth various grounds for relief. The plaintiff moved to substitute Robert Bruce Day as executor for Leonard Day who died more than two years before the making of the motion which was denied on the ground that under Rule 25(a) (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the motion would not lie. The plaintiff has appealed from the order denying its motion for substitution. An appeal will not lie when divers defendants are sued for wrongs jointly committed until the suit is decided against all the defendants. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 902; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465; cf. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 286, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478. The present appeal comes within the purview of these decisions.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants Radtke, Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., and Leonard Day, are charged with conspiring with the Radtke Patents Corp. to deprive the plaintiff of its asserted rights to a patent in a complaint which set forth various grounds for relief. The plaintiff moved to substitute Robert Bruce Day as executor for Leonard Day who died more than two years before the making of the motion which was denied on the ground that under Rule 25(a) (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the motion would not lie. The plaintiff has appealed from the order denying its motion for substitution. An appeal will not lie when divers defendants are sued for wrongs jointly committed until the suit is decided against all the defendants. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Studer v. Moore, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 902; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 465; cf. Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 286, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478. The present appeal comes within the purview of these decisions.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/photometric-products-corp-v-radtke-ca2-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack