From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Univis Lens Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 3, 1941
37 F. Supp. 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Opinion

February 3, 1941.

Samuel S. Isseks, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Stanley E. Disney and Marcus A. Hollabaugh, both of Washington, D.C., Special Attorneys, for plaintiff.

Frederick S. Duncan, of New York City, and Toulmin Toulmin, of Washington, D.C., for defendant.


Action by the United States of America against the Univis Lens Company, Incorporated, and others. On defendants' motion to quash the service.

Motion denied.


It is clear from the affidavits submitted on this motion that the corporate defendants are "transacting business" in the Southern District; that is all that is required to sustain the venue here under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 22. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Co., 273 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684; Hansen Packing Company v. Armour Co., D.C., 16 F. Supp. 784; Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Fry Products Inc., D.C., 23 F. Supp. 610

The motion of the defendants to quash the service is denied.


Summaries of

United States v. Univis Lens Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 3, 1941
37 F. Supp. 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
Case details for

United States v. Univis Lens Co.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v. UNIVIS LENS CO., Inc., et al

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1941

Citations

37 F. Supp. 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Citing Cases

United States v. Univis Lens Co.

Judgment for plaintiff in accordance with opinion. See, also, 37 F. Supp. 459. GALSTON, District…

Rohlfing v. Cat's Paw Rubber Co.

The defendant Panda Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) the defendant is a…