HUNTER

v.

BAASH-ROSS TOOL CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1935)
  …s necessary to protect plaintiffs’ rights. It held that for the appointment of receivers, with power so limited, the West Virginia Tower Hill was the only necessary party. 33 F. (2d) 703. This court having denied defendant’s petition for certiorari (280 U. S. 607) the district court made its decree conform to the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court for western Pennsylvania appointed ancillary receivers with authority to sue the Pennsylvania Tower Hill, its officers and directors to ob…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Tower Hill-Connellsville Coke Co. of W. Va. v. Piedmont Coal Co., 64 F.2d 817 (4th Cir. 1933)
  …ppellant, this court on October 15, 1929, handed down a per curiam opinion denying the rehearing. 35 F.(2d) 179. Appellant presented a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on January 13, 1930. 280 U. S. 607, 50 S. Ct. 157, 74 L. Ed. 660. A statement of the facts of the case up until the time of the former decree appealed from will be found in the opinion of this court, and it will only be necessary to state the facts as to the happenings from that tim…
• Alexander v. Hillman, 75 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1935)
  …n which the receivers of Tower Hill Company, the appellants, are plaintiffs and the appellees are defendants. The original suit has been twice before this court (33 F.(2d) 703; 64 F.(2d) 817, 91 A. L. R. 648), in each of which certiorari was denied (280 U. S. 607, 50 S. Ct. 157, 74 L. Ed. 650; 290 U. S. 675, 54 S. Ct. 93, 78 L. Ed. 582). Upon the last appeal in the original cause. this court affirmed the decree of the District Court, entered August 25, 1932, which "directed that the business and affairs of…