OVERFIELD v. PENNROAD CORPORATION

No. 258.

39 F.Supp. 482 (1941)

OVERFIELD v. PENNROAD CORPORATION et al.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 2, 1941.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel O. Hastings, of Wilmington, Del., Philip H. Strubing, of Philadelphia, Pa., R. E. Lee Marshall and George C. Doub, both of Baltimore, Md., Hugh F. O'Donnell, of New York City, and Caleb R. Layton, 3rd, of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.

Harold J. Conner, of Philadelphia, Pa. for Bertha Rosenthal, Martin Rosenthal, Patrick Conner, and Bertha Kaufman.

Daniel Blumenthal, of New York City, for Bertha Kaufman.

Macin E. Estill, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Francis E. Walter.

Lynn L. Detweiler, of Philadelphia, Pa. for Pat McGee.

Harry Reiss Axelroth and James McG. Mallie, both of Philadelphia, Pa. for intervenors Janet L. Boskey and Betty Jane Boskey.

Hugh Roberts, of Philadelphia, Pa., pro se.

C. B. Heiserman, of Philadelphia, Pa. for Pennroad Corporation.

John Dickinson, John B. Prizer, Philip Price, Robert T. McCracken, and George G. Chandler, all of Philadelphia, Pa. for Pennsylvania R. Co.

Wm. Clarke Mason, W. Heyward Myers, Jr., Thomas B. K. Ringe, and Ernest R. von Starck, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for Joseph Wayne, Jr.

R. Sturgis Ingersoll, Warwick Potter Scott, and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for Albert J. County and others.

Thomas Stokes and John Sailer, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. and Francis J. Rue.

Elder W. Marshall, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Thomas Stokes, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Sarah Mellon Scaife, Richard K. Mellon, and Union Trust Co. of Pittsburgh.

Lewis M. Stevens and Medford J. Brown, (of Stradley, Ronon & Stevens) both of Philadelphia, Pa., for Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.


WELSH, District Judge.

The complainant's motion is to amend her bill of complaint by including therein seven additional causes of action identical in form and substance with the first seven causes set forth in the bill of complaint filed in the companion case of Grace Stein Weigle against the same defendants, civil action No. 938. The motion is opposed upon the ground that the addition of such causes to the present complaint is barred by the statute of limitations...

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