1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 90 F.Supp.
  5. 90 F.Supp. 171 (1950)
 

STEINBERG v. HARDY

Civ. A. No. 2806.

90 F.Supp. 171 (1950)

STEINBERG et al. v. HARDY et al.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

March 24, 1950.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harry Tulin, Hartford, Conn., Abraham Marcus, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiffs.

Wiggin & Dana, by Frank E. Callahan, New Haven, Conn., for defendants Hardy and Buckley.

Thompson, Weir & MacDonald, by Curtiss K. Thompson, New Haven, Conn., for defendants Barium Steel Corporation and Central Iron & Steel Co.

HINCKS, Chief Judge.

This motion is based upon the contention that Sec. 1695 of the new Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A., will not support the service in Pennsylvania which was made on Central.

This contention I must overrule. Under the 1936 amendment, 49 Stat. 1213, to 28 U.S.C.A. § 112, in a double derivative suit a wholly owned subsidiary, as well as the parent, was subject to the venue and service provisions therein contained. Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 2...

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