Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In re CONCENTRATED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. HARTRIDGE et al. v. JOHN MUNROE & CO. et al., 1930 — 38 F.2d 745 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In re CONCENTRATED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. HARTRIDGE et al. v. JOHN MUNROE & CO. et al.
38 F.2d 745·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re CONCENTRATED PRODUCTS CORPORATION. HARTRIDGE et al. v. JOHN MUNROE & CO. et al.
No. 4116.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1930.
Harvey T. Mann and Julian Hartridge, both of New York City, for appellants.
Hamilton Hicks, of New York City, for appellees.
Before WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Runyon.