From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bey v. Muldoon

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 27, 1966
354 F.2d 1005 (3d Cir. 1966)

Opinion

No. 15133.

Argued September 14, 1965.

Decided January 27, 1966.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Joseph S. Lord, III, Judge.

Sidney J. Smolinsky, Philadelphia, Pa. (Bernard Sacks, Dorfman, Pechner, Sacks Dorfman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

William R. Deasey, Philadelphia, Pa. (Kelly, Deasey Scanlan, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Corry, Kelly, Muldoon, Sobelman and Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n.

Marvin I. Barish, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Borowsky Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ILA, Trustees of Pension Fund et al.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge and KALODNER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.


Much of the previous history of this case is set out in 217 F. Supp. 401 (E.D. Pa. 1962), id., 404 (E.D.Pa. 1963) and 223 F. Supp. 489 (E.D.Pa. 1963), and need not be repeated here. The agreement was reformed in accordance with the opinion last cited and as required by it. See id. supra, 496. An examination of the record and of the briefs and consideration of the oral arguments lead us to the conclusion that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the order of the court below requiring judgment to be entered for the defendants and dissolving the injunction restraining the transfer of money from the royalty fund will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Bey v. Muldoon

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan 27, 1966
354 F.2d 1005 (3d Cir. 1966)
Case details for

Bey v. Muldoon

Case Details

Full title:Abdullah Ahmad BEY et al. v. Francis MULDOON, Alfred Corry and Stewart…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jan 27, 1966

Citations

354 F.2d 1005 (3d Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. Seanor Coal Company

I think it very clear that Section 302(c)(5)(B) of the L.M.R. Act does not touch the validity of the oral…