Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. EMERSON RADIO & PH. CORP.
| Citation | 141 F. Supp. 645 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 747. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | The EMERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. EMERSON RADIO AND PHONOGRAPH CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant. |
Harry B. Rook, Newark, N. J., Kingsland, Rogers & Ezell, Edmund C. Rogers, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel, for plaintiff.
Harkavy & Lieb, Abraham I. Harkavy, Newark, N. J., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Harkavy & Lieb, Abraham I. Harkavy, Newark, N. J., for intervenor Broadwell.
May 4, 1956, 140 F.Supp. 588, this Court entered its opinion herein based upon the principle that But this Court then concluded that since "the issues in the Missouri action are not the same as those in the New Jersey action * * * this Court should not enjoin the parties before it from proceeding in the Missouri Court, even though such proceedings were instituted later".
Thereafter the parties proceeded to take the following action: (1) Broadwell, defendant in the Missouri action, represented there by attorneys who acted in New Jersey for Emerson N. Y., asked the Missouri Federal Court to stay the trial of the Missouri action then set for June 18th. This application was denied by the Missouri Court. (2) Broadwell then asked this Court to be permitted to intervene in the New Jersey action, at the same time notifying Emerson St. Louis that if, and when, such intervention was ordered, it would ask this Court to stay Emerson St. Louis from proceeding with the above trial of the Missouri action. (3) This application was heard by this Court, and Broadwell was permitted to intervene in the New Jersey action, since it appeared (a) that there was real question if the entire controversy could be disposed of in the Missouri Court, but that (b) on such intervention the entire controversy between all parties concerned could be tried once and for all in this Court, this Court advising counsel that the trial would be held in September, 1956. (4) That same afternoon, but thereafter, Emerson St. Louis obtained an order in the Missouri action, staying Broadwell from proceeding in the New Jersey action, the Missouri Court being advised of the possibility of the above application for intervention, but not being advised of the fact that the intervention had been already ordered by the New Jersey Court. Nor was the New Jersey Court advised by counsel till the next day, of this stay in Missouri or of the application therefor. (5) Immediately after Broadwell was permitted to intervene in the New Jersey action, it and Emerson N. Y. applied for a stay against Emerson St. Louis, the plaintiff in such action, to prevent Emerson St. Louis from proceeding in the Missouri action.
To this stay, Emerson St. Louis objected, claiming that all issues involving all three parties in both actions could be disposed of in the Missouri action, thus avoiding "unnecessary litigation" by the trial of the New Jersey suit at all. The theory of Emerson St. Louis here was that Emerson N. Y., by arranging for the defense of Broadwell in the Missouri action, had thereby not only estopped Emerson N. Y. from denying the issues which might be decided by the Missouri Court, but thereby had also enabled the Missouri Court to treat Emerson N. Y. as if it were a party to the Missouri action so as to enter a decree against it, as by an injunction, and a judgment against it for possible damages. This contention was disputed by Emerson N. Y., the authorities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler
...basis of the circumstances involved in this case we think this choice was a wise one indeed. See Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp., D.C.D.N.J.1956, 141 F.Supp. 645. 2 The claim is still pleadable upon proper showing that justice requires it. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. ......
-
Pierce v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
...U.S. 813, 62 S. Ct. 798, 86 L.Ed. 1211; Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Radio & P. Corp., D.C.N.J.1956, 140 F.Supp. 588, 590, Id., 141 F.Supp. 645. Indeed, in November 1954, I T & T moved this Court to stay its hand pending further proceedings in the above litigation in the First Circu......
-
Perfectvision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.
...2012 WL 5251191, at *9 (N.D.Okla. Oct. 24, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Emerson Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp., 141 F.Supp. 645, 647 (D.N.J.1956) (cautioning that courts should use restraint when deciding whether to stop parties from litigating in other ......
-
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company v. Bostitch, Inc.
...jurisdiction thereof. See, e. g., American Chemical Paint Co. v. Thompson Chemical Corp., supra; Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp., D.C.N.J.1956, 141 F.Supp. 645; cf. Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 3 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 925, certiorari denied 1942, 315 U.S. 8......