From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minneapolis Gasoline Fuel Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 6, 1941
38 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Opinion

March 6, 1941.

Louis Karasik, of New York City, Hiram Z. Mendow, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Maurice J. Dix, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Richard M. Page and Benjamin C. Loder, both of New York City, for defendants.


Action under the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, by Minneapolis Gasoline Fuel Company against Ethyl Gasoline Corporation and others. On plaintiff's motion to vacate an ex parte order staying the action until it shall post security for costs in the sum of $250.

Motion granted.


The plaintiff moves to vacate an ex parte order staying the suit until it shall post security for costs in the sum of $250. This is a suit under the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730.

Rule 34 of the civil rules of this court, dealing with procedural matters, makes our old equity practice applicable in the absence of any other federal statute or federal rule of civil procedure. Inasmuch as I believe that, under the old equity practice, the allowance of security for costs was a matter of discretion (Uhle v. Burnham, C.C., 46 F. 500), I am inclined, under the circumstances in this case, to disallow the application for such security. Cf. Cavicchi v. Mohawk Mfg. Co., Inc., D.C., 27 F. Supp. 981.

The motion to vacate the ex parte order of February 24, 1941 is granted.


Summaries of

Minneapolis Gasoline Fuel Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 6, 1941
38 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
Case details for

Minneapolis Gasoline Fuel Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MINNEAPOLIS GASOLINE FUEL CO. v. ETHYL GASOLINE CORPORATION et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 6, 1941

Citations

38 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Citing Cases

Atlantic City Electric Co. v. General Electric Co.

Reluctance to make premature rulings on admissibility of evidence in complex antitrust cases is not novel.…