Case ID: f_269/html/0979-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WINDOW GLASS MACH. CO. et al. v. NEW BETHLEHEM WINDOW GLASS CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    January 17, 1921.)
    No. 2590.
    Appeal and error <§=>1194(2)—Keftisa! to enjoin proceedings contemplated on affiananee of former denial of injunction held proper.
    Where, on former appeal, the denial of an injunction to restrain further proceedings in the state court for dissolution of a corporation was affirmed, the court below properly refused thereafter to enjoin further proceedings in the state court, which had been contemplated at the time of the former appeal, though the particular steps sought to be restrained were not then before the court.
    otber oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W. H. Seward Thomson, Judge.
    Suit for injunction by the Window Glass Machine Company and another against the New Bethlehem Window Glass Company. From an order refusing the injunction, complainants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Clarence P. Byrnes, Samuel McClay, George H. Parmelee, Bake-well & Byrnes, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, all of Pittsburgh, Pa.j for appellants.
    John M. P'reeman, of Pittsburgh, Pa., A. A. Geary, of Clarion, Pa., and Harry F. Stambaugh, Albert C. Hirsch and Watson & Freeman, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
    Before BUFFINGTON, WOODLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The general course of procedure pursued by the court below in this matter was heretofore considered by this court in an opinion reported at 264 Fed. 822. While the particular steps that have since been taken in the cases in the state court were not then before us, the fact is that such steps are but the logical and to be expected sequence of the situation that was then before us, and the possibility of such events was considered by this court when it disposed of the matter.

In view of this situation, we find no error in the court below refusing to enjoin such further proceedings in the state court case. Its order is therefore affirmed.