HAMMOND CLOCK CO.
v.
SCHIFF
HAMMOND CLOCK CO.
SCHIFF
293 U.S. 529
Supreme Court of the United States (1934)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Synopsis
Hammond Clock Co. and Schiff settled their dispute, rendering the case moot, and the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without costs to either party.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
On consideration of a suggestion by petitioner that the cause herein has become moot by reason of settlement between the parties, and of a motion by petitioner to reverse the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals and to remand the 'cause with directions to dismiss, and respondent having consented to the entry of an order pursuant to the motion, it is ordered that the said motion be, and it is hereby, granted, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its decree and to dismiss the bill of complaint as against the respondent without prejudice, and without costs to either party, upon the ground that the cause is moot. Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; United States v. Hamburg American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 477-478; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 350, 362-363; C. M. Patten & Co. v. United States, 289 U. S. 705; First Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U. S. 585; Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Smith, 290 U. S. 599.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)
- Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1923)
- C. M. Patten & Co. v. United States, 289 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1933)
- Jack Lewis, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 290 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1933)
- First Union Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Consumers Co., 290 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1933)
- Danciger Oil & Rfg. Co. v. Smith, 290 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1933)
- Kfab Broad. Co. v. Sorensen, 290 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1933)