Otto E. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company

experienced surgeon and thoracic from City Bethuel M. Webster, New York Buffalo, New York. The record shows (Frederick Haas, Cohn, P. Donald J. postgraduate that he did in thor- work Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitch- surgery hospitals acic at several and at Chrystie, cock & City, New York Earl attending testimony the time of his Reed, Jackson, F. Kenneth Thorp, G. surgeon hospitals thoracic at five in New Armstrong, Reed & Pittsburgh, Pa., on Overholt, York state. Boston, Massachusetts, Dr. Richard H. brief), appellee. testified that GOODRICH, Before STALEY and postgraduate after medical school he did FORMAN, Judges. Circuit surgery University Hospi- in work at Philadelphia tal in and served as instruc- STALEY, Judge. Circuit surgery University tor at the of Penn- Pritchard, Otto E. plaintiff, sylvania. commenc- and, He established at action, alleging ed this that cancer of testimony, time of his was a member right lung smoking was caused the Overholt Thoracic Clinic Boston. Chesterfield between 1921 and Dr. Charles S. Cameron testified that the ing time it removed in receiving 1953.1 Bas- education, his medical negligence his case on and breach served as a Rockefeller Fellow warranty, plaintiff sought compensatory Hospital large York, Memorial in New damages. punitive cancer clinic. For a time he served as medically The cancer sylvania involved here Jersey defendant New cor- bronchogenic carcinoma, squa- known as poration. parties agree that Penn- type. mous cell sylvania applies. substantive law diversity Jurisdiction is based on of citi- plaintiff zenship, being a citizen of Penn- the con- men not differ as to could director and scientific medical Society. time clusions of drawn fact At Cancer American the evidence. testimony, was Dean Dr. Cameron of his College in Phila- Medical of Hahnemann delphia granted, “The motion dealing project a research where Jury find a verdict directed to relationship tobacco between with the Liggett favor of the defendant also progress. He and cancer was Myers Company, Tobacco organiza- national served several against E. Pritch- Otto dealing one tions and an international — ard.” writings His with cancer control. publications deal- complaint and included extensive ing Plaintiff’s basic is that govern- guaran prepared allegedly for right, with cancer was denied the agencies. of Morton L. Levin mental Dr. him Amendment to teed to Seventh the plaintiff’s Buffalo, York, Constitution, was the New the to his case submit expert. was a well jury. position last He also medical ted to the by contending He refines his to qualified though In 1936 came witness. that even this is a Hospital diversity ease, of New purpose the State the Cancer of of deter the study specialize mining the of York to the whether case should be sub his epidemiology jury, cancer. He was asso- applica of the mitted to the standards special ciated by commission created Employ with a ble to actions Federal under the Legislature Liability Act, New York study the State ers’ et U.S.C.A. § seq., as direc- Act, 1937 to cancer served and the Jones 46 U.S.C.A. § seq., of tor of the Bureau of Cancer Control et must be used a federal Department of Cir., 1960, the York Scuka, New State Dill court. See testimony, 145; Health. time At the of 5 Moore’s Federal Prac professor Levin was head of the jf seq. (1951). Further, Dr. Department tice 38.09 et Epidemiology of the Ros- contends 'that even the if standards adopted by Pennsylvania Park Institute and a mem- ap well Memorial the courts ply, of Council’s ber the National Research he is entitled to have his case sub study special the committee created mitted to a under his evidence. The carcinogenic additives, and effect of food Pennsylvania defendant answers that law governs associated with Health was the World plaintiff both as to what had the Organization prove of sufficiency United Nations. the and the of the evi go jury, dence to the and that under The mo- defendant made series of properly standard the district court First, tions. it moved to dismiss the directed a verdict. warranty denied, only count which be followed another motion made at question, however, That need not plaintiff’s the close of on causa- evidence here, be decided for we think that even tion and another at the close made of Pennsylvania under the rule followed in plaintiff’s case based on contention plaintiff’s evidence in the record be negli- plaintiff to establish failed definitely presents jury ques fore us granted gence. The court the motion as May Department Larkin v. tion. Stores warranty of claim but the breach de- Co., Cir., 250 F.2d 948. In Penn negligence count. After nied it as sylvania, a directed verdict can be entered parties had introduced all of their both the facts where are such that rea rested, the district court evidence men could not sonable draw different con granted motion for a defendant’s directed passing from them. clusions In saying: verdict, motion, a must view the court “* * * light party The most favorable to the Court is in the giving it, opposing opinion that no him the benefit substantial evidence every support inference. Hardiman offered to a verdict favorable has been against Pittsburgh Railways any theory 1940, the defendant on 72; Hayes Axelrod, negligence, fair 14 A.2d and that minded motion to dismiss defendant’s Standard warranty granted, count, (1960). Pennsylvania which was Practice ground plaintiff’s notice based at trial It will be remembered that timely of breach neither nor suffi- required before proof of causation court addition, cient as a In matter of law.3 issues, at this proceeding to other contends that no breach motion point court denied district prove occurred since failed ultimately defendant to dismiss. warranty causation, express granting F.R.Civ.P. under the motion existed, proof that in the absence 50, U.S.C.A., court district Rule cigarettes did not meet that Chesterfield proof did not make it clear whether cigarettes generally sold, the standard or whether insufficient causation was there no evidence to a breach solely plaintiff’s his decision was based implied warranty merchantabil- óf being negligence. prove That failure to ' -' ity. ..... so, meet the we it advisable to deem warranty sufficiency of fitness Under a the evidence , particular use, for a outlined warrants seller of causation first. We j goods background that special purpose plaintiff’s sold are suitable wit- above causation.! buyer, a war while nesses who testified as to of ranty merchantability of in his that of testified that Each opinion plaintiff’s the doctors goods general reasonably are fit caused for cancer was they long smoking. purposes for which sold. Frantz are continued Equipment Co., 1952, Leo Co. v. Butler however, Defendant, contends Here, 88 A.2d 702. the facts though plaintiff’s experts even that warranty merchant both a of may categorical given opinions have con ability e., use, and for fitness i. that cerning relationship smok between reasonably Chesterfield were ing cancer, opinions and such should smoking generally fit and intended for validity proof of no there no since causing injury. physical without The acceptance relationship by of this compellingly points to an ex profession. medical Aside from fact press defendant, by warranty, for the testimony that in reveals advertising media, means various acceptance existed, that such this conten only repeatedly assured that tion has no merit unless are to over we smoking absolutely Chesterfields was what rule said J. M. Car we Brett v. harmless, jury in addition the could but Inc., ras, Cir., 1953, 3 which very well concluded there that approved express us in Deitz v. United assurances no harmful effect July lungs. far States, Cir., 1955, As back as 3 228 F.2d 494. See appeared in an advertisement a also Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. claiming Pittsburgh newspaper that as to 163; Co., 1959, 8 Wis.2d 99 N.W.2d Chesterfields:4 Williams, People York v. the State New good cigarette N.Y.2d 187 no N.Y.S.2d cause can “A 6 * * * 549; McKay ailments Texas, ills cure no 750, 159 N.E.2d gives you pleasure, it but lot 235 155 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d peace of mind and comfort.” (1940, Wigmorei Evidence §§ month, it that was said: Later ed.). have no This intention we 3d doing. best, cigarette purer At defendant’s contention is made nois “There goes jury since it Chesterfield.” for the than one given expert weight the several to be appeared in national Assurances also magazines. showing picture opinions. After warranty Pittsburgh Press, July 16, claim is based breach of 1934. The 3. 4. Act, Purdon’s Sales the Uniform Pittsburgh July 26, Press, 5. The §§ Pa.Stat.Ann. smoking Laboratories, staff on the effects Liggett Myers Research & cigarettes.” Chesterfield follows: statement this quality tests “The constant Later, Godfrey said:12 in Chesterfield’s research advanced say— they they mean what “That guar- your modern laboratories Liggett it, specialist said that always will Chesterfields antee that Myers it. Re- have substantiated cigarette much milder—the best wondering you’re member when you for to smoke.” cigarettes. Chester- about Smoke 1953, advertise- several occasions On you.” fields—they’re good. Thank following appear- ments similar You.” Be- : “Chesterfield is Best for import ed We think the clear this that, advertising that Chesterfields campaign was said fore lead smo- was to got good.” “Good—they’ve “Play are8 kers to order believe 13 Plaintiff Safe—Smoke Chesterfield.” systematic ad and nationwide One these assur- testified that he relied on vertising campaign the rec stands out thinking ances suffer would “Nose, essence, it said ord. smoking adverse effects Chester- accessory organs throat, not adverse Whether it was fields. reasonable smoking ly Chesterfields.” affected rely was, course, so a matter him to supplied.) appeared in (Emphasis It magaz Pittsburgh newspaper, jury. national repeated ine,10 national evidence, From the could featuring program Arthur television very well have that there was- concluded \ Godfrey. Typical of commercials he warranty implied \ of breach an mer a following presented the :11 by record, supported If the “ ]__chantability.¡ ** * You hear the stuff all charge jury could the the district court ‘cigarettes are harmful to time about you’ practices they are to consider the this and that and other cigarette other of quality manufacturers and * ** thing. cigarettes they manufacture ad, you’ve it in the an seen “Here’s bearing question of merchant as ability. you get papers—please read it when practices, however, are Such you you make it. If smoke it will usually conclusive, not “what done really. better, feel ought may evidence of be what to be accessory ought done, “Nose, but or- what to be done throat and by by gans adversely pru a not smok- fixed standard of reasonable affected ing dence, usually complied whether it the first Chesterfield. This is Ry. report not.” published with or Texas & Pacific ever about Co. such cigarette. 468, 1903, 470, any responsible Behymer, A con- U.S. course, organization reported they 622, 905. sulting 47 L.Ed. Of S.Ct. has by continuing study be considered side the results of a would side competent specialist and assurances.14 medical defendant’s - Time, February Program 5, 12. November 6. 1950. 1952. April 20, Life, August 11, Life, February 13.

7. March 1952. August 10, August 1953. June proposition 14. To its that no im- warranty plied merchantability existed Saturday Evening Post, December 8. plaintiff failed since show 1931. cigarettes Chesterfield did meet September 22, Pittsburgh Press, 9. generally, sold standards quotes 1952. us to refers from Equipment Frantz Co. v. Leo Butler Life, January 26, 10. 1953. 459, 464-465, 1952, 370 Pa. Program September 24, there, however, 1952. 706. The court 11. Simi- September referring to cases were made on those where lar statements items are brand name. It sold has never been Act, 69 knew or should the breach the Uniform known of 49 of Sales have Section may contains considered. That was true Pa.Stat.Ann. § Purdon’s Pennsylvania provides: passage requirement of the even before notice “ Fearl, * * * Uniform Sales Act. Hanna v. acceptance if, But sending 556. In 18 A. give buyer goods, fail to of the question ju- reasonableness the breach notice to the seller of Pennsyl- court, construing ry, the while warranty, any promise or within Ingersoll vania law Prod- Bonker buyer reasonable time after (D.Mass. Corp., F.Supp. 5, ucts ought such or know of knows breach, 1955), said: liable the seller shall not be ap- it is therefor.” “The cases indicate consideration propriate to into take notice, received Plaintiff’s which was Undoubted- plaintiff’s situation. agent 21,1954, defendant’s October ly been able would read: to the defendant write letter you our is to inform “This know, long August did She before Pritchard, client, E. has elected Otto however, mother had im- that her injury as a he received to treat mediately grocery store. notified Ciga- smoking Chesterfield result of have seen I assume she could While warranty as a breach rettes August lawyer 1, still was before Liggett Myers part of Tobacco & her to wait so unreasonable for Co.” months, day which was of four short inference Where than one more fourth and weeks after her two facts, may undisputed drawn from I operation, the extent last disputed, timeliness and the facts are say a matter law now that as must sufficiency of a of war of breach notice ?” recover she cannot ranty questions for the to res is, considered to be One factors olve.15 The of reasonableness giving delay or its notice form did the circum must be determined Pennsylvania prejudice the seller? The stances in the case. Columbia individual approached prejudice ques- cases Automobile Ins. Co. v. American Axle Co., Cir., engrafting by of laches doctrine tion 1933, 206, 208. F.2d 6 63 Act, Kull 49 of the Uniform Sales onto § authority 580, Co., 1933, Pa. There to 311 is Motors v. General 1925, 562; Bromley Morse, peculiar circum proposition 284 that 166 A. v. surrounding buyer “Laches,” 588, after he 131 479. Pa. A. stances pur- Royson Engineering Co., alleged Magnavox that here the Chesterfields Co. v. 1961, Pa.Super. 139, plaintiff A.2d 559. 195 169 were not smoked and chased generally quality same as those of the and discussed Burket v. West Cited sold. Supply Co., 41 moreland Westmoreland (Pa.Com.P1.1958). 35 The Uniform L.J. Hosiery v. Albert M. Green 15. Victorson Code, Purdon’s Commercial 12A Pa.Stat. 717, Mills, Cir., 41 3 2-607(3), forward § Ann. carries the re Motorcoaches, 806; Inc. Texas A.L.R.2d quirements on notice breach under § Go., Cir., F. A. G. Motors 3 Sales Act. 49 Uniform Drafts Gypsum 91; Co. F.2d United States men’s comments to that subsection read Foundry Birdsboro Steel & Machine follows: “The time of notification as is Pa.Super. by applying to be determined commercial Pa.L.Encyc. (1960). buyer. As a to standards merchant ‘A rea timeliness, it has been said that “the time’ for notification a sonable re time, question judged by of what is reasonable consumer is to be tail different the Commercial Code as under the under so that in his case it will standards be Act, extended, requiring will of fact for rule Sales noti designed unless but one inference can be commer defeat fication faAth, deprive good therefrom as to reasonableness.” drawn cial had not Sell, Sales, Survey Pa.Law, remedy.” (Em 1956-1957 consumer his faith (1958). phasis supplied.) 19 U. Pitt.L.Rev. See defective materials In or distributor of the said Pennsylvania Supreme Court present it was 269, used in a bus were when Estate, re Grote’s inspected instru- them and de- one 383, 387, when “arises A.2d obtaining parts for the mental in prej- new rights so position or fendant’s Bodek & Son entire fleet. Avrach, In Aaron length inexcusable and of time udiced 225, 227, 146 A. circum- delay, plus facts attendant thing plaintiffs injustice to “the stances, it that would go and look did was ask defendants a claim presently permit the assertion assertion was no blankets. There against him.” wrong anything that there was a substan plaintiff lost Here, the any them, state if was it failed to it lung weight v/as his after tial amount of course, plaintiff particulars.” Here, of removed on December clearly he suf- informed during convalescence record shows that smoking injury as fered an a result of forty pounds weighed one hundred and - Chesterfields. weight one pre-operation near from a negligence claim, plaintiff con- theOn days ninety pounds. Ten hundred conclusively tends the evidence hospital, discharged being from the negligent in shows that defendant was recurring he was readmitted because failing to sub- warn him that certain vomiting inability He to swallow. stances, allegedly cancer-producing, were January 6, 1954. there until remained although present knew Chesterfields Thereafter, periodically an visited or should Defend- have known fact. Pittsburgh his hospital in where other ant contends that there no evidence esophagus suffered dilated. He also in the record to show that at time hemorrhages experienced shortness cancer, contracted defendant had 1954, he was In June of of breath. or in the exercise of reasonable care given physiotherapy treatments any knowledge or notice had should right follow-up leg, Dr. Kent as saw lung probably cancer would during year following patient sur prolonged resulted from excessive smok- gery. physical apparently His condition ing. such that he did not return to work layman Plaintiff inex until 1955. was a Pennsylvania, sup who one complications perienced in scientific product plies a another and knows or many involved here that took weeks should know that the foreseeable use is preparation and trial to unravel. There dangerous to human life unless certain allegation or intimation that de taken, precautions are and who realizes any prejudice fendant has suffered or should realize the user will not receiving notice sooner or in a dif vigilance in the exercise recognize reasonable comprehensive and more ferent form. danger, duty the is under a to prejudice is The lack of by best manifested consequences the user of such warn and vigorous thorough and the defense proper precautions. Hopkins to advise Although presented. notice was not Nemours, Cir., 1952, De E. I. Du Pont given approximately months, for ten it Refining 199 Co., Maize v. F.2d Atlantic cannot be said that under these circum 352 Pa. untimely stances it was and insufficient as 449; Restatement, A.L.R. Torts § a matter of law. (1934). precautions necessary to comply with the standard of reasonable To his contention that the vary danger with ness the involved. inadequate, form of notice was defendant Refining Atlantic Co., supra; Maize MacDougall cites and on two relies decisions which de Pennsylvania Power & comment. In brief Texas Motor serve coaches, Light Co., 311 166 A. Inc. v. A. C. F. Motors only Cir., evidence On the awareness of inspectors danger, ap notice was that two offered the testi- by employed mony expert parently of several witnesses. manufacturer Dr. knowledge or are to use of the leads those who deed Kremer testified that smoking epider- to char- the chattel believe it to be connection between and than being in a for use acter Or condition safer moid many disseminated cancer was likely to it be.” years Kaunitz he knows Restatement, to be to be prior or 1953. Dr. b, relationship Torts, comment be- testified that he noted Furthermore, lung (1934).17 smoking heavy between as tween early cancer and and defendant no tests said made Cameron as while Dr. carcinogenic relationship content of determine the Chesterfields, be- that literature relationship smoking or between lung avail- tween was and cancer lung smoking. century ago. cancer and Under these himself be- half He able circumstances, relationship in whether it was reasonable came interested in the for conducted defendant not dif- that mid Dr. testified 1930’s. Overholt clearly suspicious ferent tests was connection additional became that a lung smoking matter that been submitted heavy and should existed between jury. early 1940’s, that he in the and cancer smoking. stopped Levin himself Dr. The same can said defendant’s relationship be- started research on give warning any failure to producing cancer- smoking lung cancer tween and ingredients in Ches- that were reading dealing article German terfields. That is made clear what was subject. Refining Co., said Maize v. Atlantic 41 A.2d 850. addition, was evidence there point There remains one last that in 1952 defendant conducted tests discussed. Plaintiff contends that admittedly to effects of determine court district ing error in exclud- committed smoking nose, throat Chesterfields on the bibliography from evidence a con- accessory organs. Apparently, this ' taining ninety-five seven hundred by defend test undertaken was dealing supposedly references to articles harmful effects on ant to determine the allegedly with the harmful effect of beings smoking products. human from its upon body. tobacco the human He bot- Little, conducted Arthur D. It was position toms his on the assertion that Inc., employed which was summary the titles constitute a purpose. test, result of this for this As a summary articles that such a is ac- smoking Chester concluded that was cepted original where the materials are “nose, no harmful fields had effect voluminous, goes say this organs.” accessory throat, and There particularly pertinent since rule is here evidence the record these was bibliography “not offered to inadequate were tests inconclusive falsity any prove the truth or matter as the basis such a conclusion. In * * * solely prove but there addition, case notes of the doctor who body existence a vast literature persons participated in examined products about its of which defendant that some of them suffered test show unaware.” The essence of defend- smoking harmful effects Chester position ant’s that there has been further There was fields. showing that the titles are an accurate widely publicized and the tests original summary of the materials. in to advertisements assure used results general public general plaintiff and that rule that The is the use the smoking summary It was harmless. Chesterfields is a matter that rests supplying that one said “a the sound been within discretion of the trial has subject liability by if to word court. Standard Co. of chattel Oil California phrase contends and throat for the 17. Defendant It decide. “accessory organs” does not include be should noted that later phrase dropped lungs. advertising. Whether it was reasonable for from its layman, plaintiff, as a think that and substituted the word “sinuses.” accessory organs lungs to the nose were

301 Co., Mo.1958, think We 312 S.W.2d 758. Cir., 1957, certio F.2d Moore, 251 not, objection to the raised there for the 78 S.Ct. denied, 356 U.S. rari hearsay bibliography Royal use of to the 1148; Pioneer “was 1139, 2 L.Ed.2d DeJonge doctor’s of the Mfg. & nature evidence Paper Louis Co. v. Box expressing opinion his as to the value Pa.Super. by Pa.Super. opinions expressed others 1953, 172 the which, Porta, [the] 837; Keller course, improper,” would be criteria Certain A.2d 140. 763) exercising (id. page never the court guide its in court evolved evidentiary feel is rule must discussed we So, proper foundation discretion. controlling. admissibility to the reference laid with be importantly, originals. it More judgment will the district court ac summation that the be shown must be reversed cause remanded and the in curately materials summarizes the granted directions referring information not volved new trial.18 original. Standard in the not contained supra. Moore, California Judge Oil Co. of (concur- GOODRICH, Circuit Usually or summa materials ring the records result). in accessible be made rized must first I result which concur While inspection and for opposing party for sends another trial and this case back for Shelley In re cross use in Furniture, examination. finders, submission to the fact it seems Cir., F.2d Inc., my express desirable to me to standing under- County Commissioners Board of the basis on which it is to Wyandotte County J. v. William Kansas be returned. Inc., Howard, Cir., cer language the ad- There is some denied, 351 U.S. tiorari cigarettes vertisements for Chesterfield L.Ed. 1456. S.Ct. which shown in the could be pro did offer to Plaintiff not de- assert understood to a claim make avail or otherwise duce court part that these fendant’s original listed in able all of articles magazine newspaper and harmless. In They bibliography. not avail public advertisements the was told that perusal or for to defendant its organs able accessory “Nose, throat, and best, plain At examination. use in cross adversely by smoking not affected [are] “reprints” of tiff offered “abstracts” good ciga- Chesterfields,” “A and that fifty-one of the articles. two hundred and no no rette can ills and cure ail- cause Additionally, no evidence was offered program Godfrey, ments.” Arthur on a accu show that the titles constituted sponsored defendant, broadcast that original summary rate mass. they “never did he [Chester- believe reliability prove Plaintiff did offer to any we, harm now did we’ve fields] from of the source material which got proof.” If a manufacturer as- gathered and the title references were procedure employed potential public prod- that his sures compiling proved and it uct is harmless bibliography. offer would be mean This held, harmless, doubt, he can ingful, however, Pa.Stat.Ann, if we were to as warranty. breach accurate sum sume that the titles are (Supp.1960); 12A, Uniform 2-313 tit. § mations, which common sense forbids us 2-313; Code Uniform Commercial doing. light facts, of these we person 12. And when a Act § Sales say cannot that the district court abused a statement of to another fact makes which its discretion. true, not know to be in- does tending in re- sup- other shall act urges his contention is Plaintiff statement, Distributing the truth liance ported Braun v. Roux interrogatories known concurring opinion, so that it will be light we jury lia- determined on what basis trial the new it advisable that deem any. bility, if on the ease court submit negligent misrepresentation. is liable In- this no claim that case there was Restatement, (1934); Robb Chesterfields Torts are made commercial- not § Gylock ly satisfactory Corporation, 1956, See Restatement tobacco. (Second), (Tent. here A.2d If the defendant Torts 174.1 402A Draft No. § 1961). nobody position knows takes the cigarettes whether not cause cancer buyers but at same time asserts to cigarettes not cause Chesterfield do cancer, difficulty customer it is in if a shows that the use of these

caused cancer in him. unwilling go. that I am Further than dangerous potentially Take a sub- sale HOLLAND COMPANY, FURNACE ject Everybody whiskey. Petitioner, matter like consumption knows of intoxicat- that the ing beverages may differ- cause several FEDERAL COMMISSION, TRADE goes types physical ent This harm. Respondent. clear Testa- back to the era of the Old No. 12451. ment: Appeals United States Court early up “Woe unto them that rise Seventh Circuit. morning, they may in the fol- 11, 1961. Oct. * * strong low Isa. drink 5:11. woe? sor-

“Who hath who hath

row? hath contentions? who who babbling? hath who hath wounds

without cause? who hath redness eyes ? “They tarry long wine; at the

* * Prov. 23:29~30. whiskey buys If a man and drinks too gets of it trouble as

much some liver

a result I do not think the manufacturer (1) the is liable unless manufacturer whiskey tells the will not customer (2) whiskey adulter-

hurt him or whiskey methyl alcohol, ated —made surely The same is true of instance.

one who churns sells butter

customer who should on a nonfat diet. likewise, true, one same is as to who peanuts salted to a cus- roasts sells on

tomer who should be Surely a no-salt diet. peanuts if the butter liability pure there is no if the cholesterol dangerously.

count rises ice, Especially appropriate which this connection condition of the fact dangerously although ap- thin Illustration comment 6 310: so B, pearing. B that he has “1. A tells tried the ice reliance A’s state- pond upon ments, attempts pond and found thick to skate certain in, enough skating knowing catching falls severe for safe that he cold. A knowing nothing it and to B.” has not tried is liable

Case Details

Case Name: Otto E. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Nov 7, 1961

Citation: 295 F.2d 292

Docket Number: 13267_1

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.