Heintz v. Vill. Realty, Inc., 277 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Heintz v. Vill. Realty, Inc., 277 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Metallgesellschaft A.G. v. M/v Capitan Constante and Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (ca2, 1986-05-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metallgesellschaft A.G. v. M/v Capitan Constante and Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales
2d Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Id. at 210.
discussed Cited "see" Greenstone Shipping Co. v. Transworld Oil, Ltd.
D. Del. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Compagnie DiNavigazione Mauritius Rome v. Kulukundis, 182 F.Supp. 258, 263 (E.D.N.Y.1959), aff’d., 277 F.2d 161 (2d Cir.1960) (liability to pay freight is "an independent obligation and is not discharged because of failure to deliver the cargo in good condition”); Compania Naviera Puerto Madrin S.A.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph J. Heintz, Jr., and Pauline Heintz
v.
Village Realty, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Gallagher and McManus Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation and Centralia Mining Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation
13093.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 3, 1960.
277 F.2d 161
1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4664
Published

277 F.2d 161

Joseph J. HEINTZ, Jr., and Pauline Heintz, Appellants
v.
VILLAGE REALTY, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; Gallagher
and McManus, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation; and
Centralia Mining Company, a Pennsylvania
corporation.

No. 13093.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit

Argued April 5, 1960.
Decided May 3, 1960.

William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for appellants.

Arthur J. Sullivan, E. Dickinson Griffenberg, Wilmington, Del. (Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, Del., Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, Del. on the brief), for appellees.

Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

In this diversity action plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendants constructing a shopping center in Swanwyck, Delaware on the ground that the construction violated certain applicable building restrictions. After the court's refusal to allow a temporary restraint of the construction, both sides moved for summary judgment. In granting the defense motion and denying that of plaintiffs, Chief Judge Wright held that the restrictions urged by appellants were not binding on the land involved. His opinion fully covers the issue and does, we think, soundly and fairly decide it.

2

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 177 F.Supp. 491.