Legal Opinion

United States v. A. Bentley & Sons Co.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided October 16, 1923No. 2178PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSater, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The plaintiff’s attitude is that as between it and the defendant a fiduciary relation existed — that defendant’s posture was that of a trustee and that of. the government the beneficiary of a trust. It is true, the courts have regarded government officers and agents, when dealing for or with the government to which their services are due, as occupying a position similar to that of a guardian transacting business for or with his ward. Note, for instance, Garman v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 237, 242; U. S. v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286, 306, et seq., 30 Sup. Ct. 515, 54 L.…

2Cases cited57 opinions

  1. Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Hollerbach v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  4. United States v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  5. Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. United States v. Georgia-Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  2. Cullen Fuel Co. v. W. E. Hedger, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Rowe v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
  4. Hall v. Union Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
  5. O'Hare v. Peacock Dairies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938

19 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