Legal Opinion
Hartley v. Lapidus & Holub Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided August 3, 1914No. 3935PublishedCited by 5 opinions
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa; Smith McPherson, Judge. Action at law by L. M. Hartley against the Lapidus & Holub Company. Judgment for plaintiff, for a part of his claim only, and he brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in his petition filed October 25, 1909, says that the parties to this suit entered into a written contract as follows:
“Cliicago, Aug. 24th, 09.
“Memoranda of agreement made this day between L. M. Hartley of Salem, Iowa, party of the first part and the Lapidus & Holub Co., 141 So. Water St. Chicago, Ill., party of the second part.
“Party of the first part agrees to sell to party of the second part his entire crop of apples now growing on his farm about four and one half (4%) miles south of Salem, Iowa consisting of orchard of about one hundred ten acres (110)…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Chapman v. BarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Chirac v. ReinickerSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Holmes v. JennisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Boyle v. Zacharie & TurnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Iowa State BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
- Beers v. Denver & R. G. W. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- Iowa Coal Washing Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Walker v. HarperCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1943
- E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1961