1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 40 F.Supp.
  5. 40 F.Supp. 876 (1941)
 

GEISMAR v. BOND & GOODWIN

40 F.Supp. 876 (1941)

GEISMAR v. BOND & GOODWIN, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 8, 1941.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Godfrey & Marx, of New York City (Walter E. Godfrey and S. David Leibowitt, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Crawford, James & Harper, of New York City (Martin J. Her, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Bond & Goodwin, Inc.

Hardy, Stancliffe & Hardy, of New York City (John L. Farrell and Robert V. Rafter, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants States S. S. Co. and others.

COXE, District Judge.

These are motions by the defendants challenging the sufficiency of the 2d, 3d, 4th and 6th causes of action of the amended complaint. The 2d, 3d and 4th causes of action are identical with the same causes of action of the original complaint; the 6th cause of action is new with the amended complaint.

The defendant Bond & Goodwin Inc. will hereafter be referred to as "Bond & Goodwin"...

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