From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otis Co., v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 29, 1946
155 F.2d 522 (3d Cir. 1946)

Opinion

No. 9059.

Argued May 23, 1946.

Decided May 29, 1946.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Harry E. Kalodner, Judge.

Robert J. Bulkley, of Washington, D.C. (James F. Masterson, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Russell Hardy and Herbert G. Pillen, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief) for appellant.

John Dickinson and R. Sturgis Ingersoll, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Albert Ward, R. Sturgis Ingersoll, and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARIS, GOODRICH, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.


This is an action by a shareholder suing the corporate and individual defendants for alleged negligence in failing to take steps which the plaintiff alleges were necessary in the exercise of reasonable care in the course of the refunding of certain corporate indebtedness. There is little, if any, dispute between the parties as to the rules of law applicable. The appellant makes the point that the court's conclusion did not properly apply the law to the facts before it. This matter was thoroughly considered by Judge Kalodner in the District Court and every important phase of the matter was discussed in his opinion. 1945, 61 F. Supp. 905. We agree with that opinion and affirm his judgment for the reasons stated by him.


Summaries of

Otis Co., v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 29, 1946
155 F.2d 522 (3d Cir. 1946)
Case details for

Otis Co., v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Case Details

Full title:OTIS CO., Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Pennsylvania, Ohio…

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: May 29, 1946

Citations

155 F.2d 522 (3d Cir. 1946)

Citing Cases

West Bros. v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co.

I. The appellee is capable, financially and otherwise, of performing the proposed service. English v. Landa…

Farmers Elevator Grain Co. v. Hines

Slack v. Ry. Co., 187 S.W. 277. A comparison of the facts disclosed by plaintiff's evidence in chief in this…