1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 30 F.Supp.
  5. 30 F.Supp. 108 (1939)
 

FREDERICK W. HUBER, INC. v. PILLSBURY FLOUR MILLS CO.

30 F.Supp. 108 (1939)

FREDERICK W. HUBER, Inc., v. PILLSBURY FLOUR MILLS CO.

District Court, S. D. New York.

October 5, 1939.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cook, Nathan, Lehman & Greenman, of New York City (Chester Rohrlich and Morris L. Levinson, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Holmes & Healy, of New York City (Frederick J. Moses and Thomas M. Healy, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

GODDARD, District Judge.

This is a motion to strike out paragraphs II and III of the answer on the ground that they fail to state a legal defense or, in the alternative to striking out paragraph III, that the defendant furnish a bill of particulars with respect to it.

The reason asserted for striking out paragraph II is that it is redundant. Defendant has made a general denial of the allegation that it sold flour at lower prices than that at which it sold...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases