Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
Decision Date | 03 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6977.,6977. |
Citation | 102 F.2d 702 |
Parties | APEX HOSIERY CO. v. LEADER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
M. Herbert Syme, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Sylvan H. Hirsch, of Philadelphia, Pa., (Arno P. Mowitz, Mowitz & Kohlhas, and Sundheim, Folz & Sundheim, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.
Before DAVIS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The defendants in an action for treble damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act § 7, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, note, have appealed from an order of the court below made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for the discovery and production by them of documents for inspection, copying and photographing by the plaintiff for use at the trial of the action. An order of this nature is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable. This has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court in the cases of Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275, and Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 57 S.Ct. 57, 81 L.Ed. 67. In the former case Mr. Justice Brandeis said (pages 223, 224, 49 S.Ct. page 119): applications to suppress a deposition, Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 661, 662, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776; Pullman Co. v. Jordan 218 F. 573, 577; In essence, the motion resembles others made before or during a trial to secure or to suppress evidence, such as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...cases, see, e. g., Webster Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 207 U.S. 181, 28 S.Ct. 108, 52 L.Ed. 160 (1907); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 102 F.2d 702 (3d Cir. 1939) (per curiam); Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 163 F.2d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1947) (dictum). For post-1949 cases, see, e. g., Paramou......
-
Brown v. Saint Paul City Ry. Co., 36019
...to allow discovery are not appealable under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1292, because they are interlocutory and not final. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 702; O'Malley v. Chrysler Corp., 7 Cir., 160 F.2d 35; Zalatuka v. Metropolitan L. Ins., Co., 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 405; National Nut C......
-
RD Goldberg Theatre Corp. v. Tri-States Theatre Corp.
...reviewability now before the court seems to have been determined adversely to the position of the moving defendants in Apex Hosiery Company v. Leader, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 702. That case, as does this, involved an order of the trial court under Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.......
-
Hartley Pen Co. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.
...usages and principles of law. "(b) * * *" Admittedly the orders complained of are interlocutory and not appealable. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 3 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 702; Zalatuka v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 405. This Circuit has held that an order relating t......