Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

POWER SPECIALTY CO. v. CONN. LIGHT POWER CO., 31 F.2d 1018 (2nd Cir. 1929)

POWER SPECIALTY Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Conn. LIGHT POWERCOMPANY & B.F. Sturtevant Co., Defendants-Appellants., 31 F.2d 1018 (2d Cir. 1929)

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1929-04-01
Topic: general

POWER SPECIALTY CO. v. CONN. LIGHT POWER CO., 31 F.2d 1018 (2nd Cir. 1929) POWER SPECIALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONNECTICUT LIGHT POWERCOMPANY and B.F. Sturtevant Company, Defendants-Appellants.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed POWER SPECIALTY CO. v. CONN. LIGHT POWER CO., 31 F.2d 1018 (2nd Cir. 1929). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

POWER SPECIALTY CO. v. CONN. LIGHT POWER CO.,31 F.2d 1018(2nd Cir. 1929)

POWER SPECIALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONNECTICUT LIGHT POWER

COMPANY and B.F. Sturtevant Company, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 242.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 1, 1929.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.Page 1019

Charles Neave, of New York City, and Alfred H. Hildreth and Melvin R. Jenney, both of Boston, Mass., for appellants.

William G. McKnight, of New York City, for appellee.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Thomas, J., in27 F.2d 928.