1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 208 F.Supp.
  5. 208 F.Supp. 485 (1962)
 

BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CORP. v. MANASSAS IRON & STEEL CO.

Civ. A. No. 13510.

208 F.Supp. 485 (1962)

BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CORP., a body corporate v. MANASSAS IRON AND STEEL CO., Inc., a body corporate, Commercial Credit Corporation, a body corporate, Maury Young, Partner Young & Simon, Henry Greenwald and Gerald Greenwald, t/a Greenwald Industrial Products Co., Lloyd E. Mitchell, Incorporated, a body corporate, George Ulsh, t/a Windsor Equipment Rental Co., Maryland Bolt and Nut Company, a body corporate, William G. Wetherall, Inc., a body corporate, J. H. Marshall & Associates, Inc., a body corporate, Comptroller of the Treasury of the State of Maryland Retail Sales Tax Division, Todd Steel, Inc., a body corporate.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

September 5, 1962.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David L. Bowers and S. Herbert Harris, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

George E. Thomsen and M. King Hill, Jr., Smith, Somerville & Case, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Manassas.

Kenneth Wells Parkinson, Washington, D. C., Berthold Muecke, Jr., and J. Francis Ireton, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Commercial Credit Corp.

Lewis Jacobs, Sacks & Jacobs, Washington, D. C., and Milton Seidenman, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Maury Young. Howard H. Conaway, Frank, Bernstein, Gutberlet & Conaway, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc.

Peter B. Turney, Baltimore, Md., for defendant George Ulsh.

Irvin S. Friedman and Joel H. Pachino, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Maryland Bolt and Nut Co.

Julius G. Maurer and Samuel Sapero, Baltimore, Md., for William G. Wetherall, Inc.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland and William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, for defendant Comptroller of the Treasury of Md. Retail Sales Tax Div.

Manuel M. Weinberg, Weinberg & Weinberg, Frederick, Md., for defendant Todd Steel, Inc.

R. DORSEY WATKINS, District Judge.

This is a suit, captioned "Complaint for Interpleader", but in fact in the nature of interpleader, purportedly brought under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1335. Motions to dismiss have been filed on behalf of four defendants.

Questions Presented.

1. Is there the requisite diversity between and among the parties?

2. Is the plaintiff a disinterested stakeholder not independently liable to any...

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