Case Name: Abdullah Ahmad BEY et al. v. Francis MULDOON, Alfred Corry and Stewart Sobelman, Trustees and Robert Kelly, Administrator of a Special Fund (2/5/62), et al. Abdullah Ahmad Bey, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-01-27
Citations: 354 F.2d 1005
Docket Number: No. 15133
Parties: Abdullah Ahmad BEY et al. v. Francis MULDOON, Alfred Corry and Stewart Sobelman, Trustees and Robert Kelly, Administrator of a Special Fund (2/5/62), et al. Abdullah Ahmad Bey, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 354
Pages: 1005–1005

Head Matter:
Abdullah Ahmad BEY et al. v. Francis MULDOON, Alfred Corry and Stewart Sobelman, Trustees and Robert Kelly, Administrator of a Special Fund (2/5/62), et al. Abdullah Ahmad Bey, Appellant.
No. 15133.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 14, 1965.
Decided Jan. 27, 1966.
Sidney J. Smolinsky, Philadelphia, Pa. (Bernard Sacks, Dorfman, Pechner, Sacks & Dorfman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
William R. Deasey, Philadelphia, Pa. (Kelly, Deasey & Scanlan, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Corry, Kelly, Muldoon, Sobelman and Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n,
Marvin I. Barish, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Borowsky & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ILA, Trustees of Pension Fund et al.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge and KALODNER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Much of the previous history of this case is set out in 217 F.Supp. 401 (E.D.Pa.1962), id., 404 (E.D.Pa.1963) and 223 F.Supp. 489 (E.D.Pa.1963), and need not be repeated here. The agreement was reformed in accordance with the opinion last cited and as required by it. See id. supra, 496. An examination of the record and of the briefs and consideration of the oral arguments lead us to the conclusion that the court below committed no error. Consequently, the order of the court below requiring judgment to be entered for the defendants and dissolving the injunction restraining the transfer of money from the royalty fund will be affirmed.