Reeves Manufacturing Co. v. Lome Co.

Sixth Circuit

Reeves Manufacturing Co. v. Lome Co.

86 F.2d 1010, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3961

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1936

DocketNo. 7220

StatusPublished

This text of 86 F.2d 1010 (Reeves Manufacturing Co. v. Lome Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reeves Manufacturing Co. v. Lome Co., 86 F.2d 1010, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3961 (6th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the bill of complaint that the two defendants are separate corporations, and that it is nowhere alleged that any agency exists between the said defendants as to the matters averred in the bill of complaint,

And it also appearing from the bill of complaint that one of the causes of action alleged therein pertains to the liability of the plaintiff for royalties under a license agreement covering Loeber patent No. 1,-358,380, and that all of the parties thereto are residents of the State of Ohio, and that the District Court has no jurisdiction as to said cause of action for royalties, Briggs v. United States, 239 U.S. 49, 36 S.Ct. 6, 60 L.Ed. 138; General Motors Corp. v. Rubsam Corp., 65 F.(2d) 217, 218 (C.C.A. 6);

The order of the District Court dismissing said bill of complaint for misjoinder of parties and for misjoinder of causes of action is hereby affirmed, and appellant’s bill is dismissed without prejudice.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the bill of complaint that the two defendants are separate corporations, and that it is nowhere alleged that any agency exists between the said defendants as to the matters averred in the bill of complaint,

And it also appearing from the bill of complaint that one of the causes of action alleged therein pertains to the liability of the plaintiff for royalties under a license agreement covering Loeber patent No. 1,-358,380, and that all of the parties thereto are residents of the State of Ohio, and that the District Court has no jurisdiction as to said cause of action for royalties, Briggs v. United States, 239 U.S. 49, 36 S.Ct. 6, 60 L.Ed. 138; General Motors Corp. v. Rubsam Corp., 65 F.(2d) 217, 218 (C.C.A. 6);

The order of the District Court dismissing said bill of complaint for misjoinder of parties and for misjoinder of causes of action is hereby affirmed, and appellant’s bill is dismissed without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F.2d 1010, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-manufacturing-co-v-lome-co-ca6-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack