Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.

Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 125 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1941)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1941-12-29
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Petitions supported by affidavits and seeking leave to file bills of review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania have been filed in this court in the above cases. The gist of these petitions is the charge that a fraud was imposed upon this court which resulted in No. 441.4 in an incorrect decision reversing the decree of the District Court. See 59 F.2d 399. The incorrect decision (if it was such) in No. 4414 caused a like incorrect result in No. 5203.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. v. HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO.,125 F.2d 976(3rd Cir. 1941)
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. v. HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. SAME v. SHAWKEE MFG. CO. et
al.
No. 4414, 5203.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued December 5, 1941.
Decided December 29, 1941.
Page 977
Petitions from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Suits by Hartford Empire Company against Hazel-Atlas Glass Company and against Shawkee Manufacturing Company, and others. From a judgment in the first suit, the plaintiff appealed and from a judgment in the second suit, the defendants appealed. On petitions for leave to file bills of review.

Petitions denied with leave to file amended petitions.
Wm. B. Jaspert, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Shawkee Mfg. Co. et al.

Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N.J., and Edgar J. Goodrich, of Washington, D.C. (Robson D. Brown, of Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for Hartford-Empire Co.

Stephen H. Philbin, of New York City (Maxwell Barus, of New York City, on the brief), for Hazel-Atlas.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, CLARK, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitions supported by affidavits and seeking leave to file bills of review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania have been filed in this court in the above cases. The gist of these petitions is the charge that a fraud was imposed upon this court which resulted in No. 4414 in an incorrect decision reversing the decree of the District Court. See59 F.2d 399. The incorrect decision (if it was such) in No. 4414 caused a like incorrect result in No. 5203. See68 F.2d 726. The proposed bills of review seek reversal of the two decisions of this court referred to.

In view of the fact that it is alleged that fraud was practiced upon this court rather than upon the court below, this court will adopt the practice followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the companion cases of Art Metal Works, Inc., v. Abraham Straus, Inc.,107 F.2d 940and 944, certiorari denied308 U.S. 621, 60 S.Ct. 293, 84 L.Ed. 518, and itself pass upon the question of whether the mandates of this court should be recalled and the cases reopened. Accordingly the prayers of the petitions as framed are denied but leave is granted to the petitioners to amend the prayers and to petition this court to set aside the judgments heretofore entered in this court, on the ground of fraud. The plaintiff-appellant will then reply to the petitions for review as amended and the questions involved will be heard and determined by this court.