BEARDSLEY

v.

BROOM, ADMINISTRATRIX

Citator

Cited By

• W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Hammond, 135 F.2d 283 (1st Cir. 1943)
  …ect to apparatus or equipment which the United States had purchased from Western Electric prior to the institution of the present declaratory judgment suit. Carroll v. Goldschmidt, 2 Cir., 1897, 83 F. 508, 509, certiorari denied, 1898, 169 U.S. 735, 18 S.Ct. 940, 42 L.Ed. 1214. But what is perhaps more important, from Hammond’s point of view, is that a declaratory judgment in his favor in the present action would be res judicata against the United States in any future suit brought by Hammond based on allege…
• Cuno Eng'g Corp. v. Hudson Auto Supply Co., 49 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1931)
  …hat it should be similarly treated as regards the right” to appeal from a denial of it. The Circuit Court of Appeals [*656] o£ the Fourth Circuit thus ruled in Baker v. Walter Baker & Co., 83 F. 3, 5 (certiorari denied, 168 U. S. 712, 18 S. Ct. 939, 42 L. Ed. 1214), where the facts were like the present. Judge Simonton there said: “Coupling the motion to dissolve the injunction with the petition for a rehearing of the ease was, in effect, a motion, to rehear the decree upon the issuance of the perpetual inju…
• Marsino v. Hogsett (D. Mass. 1930)
  …Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S. 660, 16 S. Ct. 135, 40 L. Ed. 296; McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 14 S. Ct. 913, 38 L. Ed. 867; and to invalidate state proceedings taken in violation of its provisions. Ebanks v. Hale, 168 U. S. 707, 18 S. Ct. 942, 42 L. Ed. 1214; Id. (D. C.) 84 F. 311; Ex parte Martin (C. C.) 180 F. 209. In view of the language of the statute and of these decisions under it, there is in my opinion such probable doubt as to the legality of the petitioner’s confinement as to make it proper t…