Legal Opinion

Edgewood Shoe Factories, Division of General Shoe Corp. v. Stewart

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided November 10, 1939No. 9184PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

The proceeding was for reclamation of shoes delivered under a consignment contract. The defense was: That the contract, on its face, evidenced not a consignment but a sale; and that if sufficient on its face, as a consignment contract, it was a mere subterfuge for dealings, intended to result, and resulting in, sales so that as to the shoes sought to be reclaimed, claimant was not the owner, but a creditor for their price. Submitted to the referee oh a record consisting wholly of the contract and an agreed statement of facts, there was a finding and order denying the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. D. M. Ferry & Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  2. McCallum v. Bray-Robinson Clothing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
  3. Samson Tire & Rubber Co. v. EgglestonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930
  4. Kemp-Booth Co. v. CalvinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
  5. Reliance Shoe Co. v. ManlyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Fowler v. Pennsylvania Tire Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
  2. In Re Taxes, Aiea Dairy, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Hervey v. AMF Beaird, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
  4. Mapco Inc. v. Pioneer Corporation and Amarillo Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
  5. Handfield v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API