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.
McCullough et al., doing business as McCullough Tool Co., v. Cosgrave, Judge, for the United States District Court, Southern District of California, 1940 — 309 U.S. 634 · caselaw · US
Corporations
McCullough et al., doing business as McCullough Tool Co., v. Cosgrave, Judge, for the United States District Court, Southern District of California
309 U.S. 634·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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
No. 14,
original.
McCullough et al., doing business as McCullough Tool Co., v. Cosgrave, Judge, for the United States District Court, Southern District of California.
April 1, 1940.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is granted, and the return to the order to show cause is treated as an answer to the petition. The District Judge is directed to vacate the order dated January 15, 1940, in the cases of Kammerer Corporation and Baash-Ross Tool Company v. Ira J. McCullough et al., and Ira J. McCullough v. Baash-Ross Tool Company and Kammerer Corporation, referring these cases to a Master for trial. It is further ordered that the trial of these cases be had by the District Court in due course without postponement of the trial to that of other cases not entitled to a preference, but with such arrangement as to the particular Judge who shall conduct the trial as may be consistent with the court’s convenience." Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 (b); Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Co. v. James, 272 U. S. 701.
Mr. Ford W. Harris for petitioners.
Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond for respondent.