From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile Foundation Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 31, 1948
77 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Pa. 1948)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 6380.

March 31, 1948.

William M. Alper, of Freedman, Landy Lorry, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Richard A. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.


On reargument of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Motion granted.

For former opinion, see 72 F. Supp. 326.

See also 77 F. Supp. 51.


Upon consideration of the additional authorities cited by counsel for the defendant at the reargument on defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of the present action is improperly laid in this district, I am persuaded that my previous opinion, 72 F. Supp. 326, denying defendant's motion to dismiss, is inconsonant with the principles expressed by Judge Biggs, speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Dehne v. Hillman Inv. Co., 3 Cir. 110 F.2d 456. Inasmuch as the tort which is alleged as the basis for this action did not occur in Pennsylvania, I think that under the Dehne decision I am bound to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

An order may be entered accordingly.


Summaries of

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile Foundation Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 31, 1948
77 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Pa. 1948)
Case details for

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile Foundation Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CARLISLE v. KELLY PILE FOUNDATION CORPORATION

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 31, 1948

Citations

77 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Pa. 1948)

Citing Cases

Carlisle v. S.C. Loveland Co.

The third party defendant also contends that venue of the original action is improper, and that Loveland…