United States Process Corp. v. Fort Pitt Brewing Co.

W.D. Pennsylvania

United States Process Corp. v. Fort Pitt Brewing Co.

29 F. Supp. 37, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2234

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 17, 1939

DocketNo. 414

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. Supp. 37 (United States Process Corp. v. Fort Pitt Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Process Corp. v. Fort Pitt Brewing Co., 29 F. Supp. 37, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2234 (W.D. Pa. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

GIBSON, District Judge.

The defendant has filed a demand for a jury trial and plaintiff has moved to ■strike off said demand under Rule No. 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The basis of the motion is the assertion that the remedy sought is equitable and not within •the province of a jury.

An examination of the complaint discloses that the action is really nothing other than one for breach of a° royalty contract. The complaint, it is true, prays for an injunction, but the injunction prayed for is that defendant be restrained from refusing access to its plant to plaintiff’s agent. Any information needed for purposes of trial can be obtained by the plaintiff without formal injunction. See Rule No. 34.

The motion to strike off the demand for a jury trial will be denied.

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

GIBSON, District Judge.

The defendant has filed a demand for a jury trial and plaintiff has moved to ■strike off said demand under Rule No. 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The basis of the motion is the assertion that the remedy sought is equitable and not within •the province of a jury.

An examination of the complaint discloses that the action is really nothing other than one for breach of a° royalty contract. The complaint, it is true, prays for an injunction, but the injunction prayed for is that defendant be restrained from refusing access to its plant to plaintiff’s agent. Any information needed for purposes of trial can be obtained by the plaintiff without formal injunction. See Rule No. 34.

The motion to strike off the demand for a jury trial will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Supp. 37, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-process-corp-v-fort-pitt-brewing-co-pawd-1939.