From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Judson v. Buckley

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 20, 1940
31 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Opinion

January 20, 1940.

DeBevoise, Stevenson, Plimpton Page, of New York City (William E. Stevenson, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Prentice, Collins Dwight, of New York City (Ezra P. Prentice and Charles S. Reilley, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Buckley.


The issues raised by the plaintiff's reply to the first and second counterclaims set forth in the answer of the defendant are such as entitled the defendant to a trial by jury as a matter of right. See Moore's Federal Practice, vol. 3, § 38.02, page 3009; American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co., 260 U.S. 360, 43 S.Ct. 149, 67 L.Ed. 306; Cincinnati, H. D.R. Co. v. McKeen, 7 Cir., 64 F. 36; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Burger, D.C., 27 F. Supp. 554.

Plaintiff's motion to strike out demand, conceded to have been timely served, denied and defendant's motion granted. Settle order on two days' notice unless consented to as to form.


Summaries of

Judson v. Buckley

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 20, 1940
31 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)
Case details for

Judson v. Buckley

Case Details

Full title:JUDSON v. BUCKLEY et al

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

Date published: Jan 20, 1940

Citations

31 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Citing Cases

Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Ram

The Court granted the motion "* * * upon the ground that the copies, although constituting communications…