Case Name: James S. KREAGER and Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc., Appellants, v. Ralph L. SCHIFFER, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morris Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-04-14
Citations: 358 F.2d 308
Docket Number: No. 15430
Parties: James S. KREAGER and Mercu-Ray In-dustries, Inc., Appellants, v. Ralph L. SCHIFFER, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morris Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
James S. KREAGER and Mercu-Ray In-dustries, Inc., Appellants, v. Ralph L. SCHIFFER, Arthur Tuchinsky, Morris Freed, Magna-Bond, Inc., Progress Manufacturing Company.
No. 15430.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 4, 1966.
Decided April 14, 1966.
See also D.C., 31 F.R.D. 292.
Spencer Ervin, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Nathan Lavine, Philadelphia, Pa. (Marvin Krasny, Adelman & Lavine, Philadelphia, Pa., Ronald A. Ervais, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ap-pellee Progess Mfg. Co.
Before BIGGS, GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants were invited by this court to amend the defective complaint in order that it might conform with the provisions of Section 1332(c), Title 28, U.S.C., by supplying allegations in respect to the principal places of business of the corporate parties necessary for the maintenance of diversity jurisdiction. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants informed us that he does not desire to amend the complaint. Thereafter, we entered an order allowing the necessary amendments to be made by any party to the cause to the end that the case would not have to be retried. On March 21, 1966, the defendant-appellee, Progress Manufacturing Company, by its counsel, filed an affidavit which amends adequately the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. We find, therefore, that jurisdiction now exists. 28U.S.C. § 1653.
An examination of the record in this case and consideration of the arguments of the parties convinces us that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.