Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
This is an action for breach of contract. Pursuant to order of the court, separate issues were tried, i. e., (a) was there a contract, and (b) if there was a contract, did it violate the statute of frauds? Both issues were resolved in favor of plaintiff. See D.C., 3 F.R.D. 279 and D.C., 63 F.Supp. 361. Plaintiff objected to finding of fact No. 22 and conclusion of law No. 1, arguing that the terminal date of the contract was not within the separate issues tried. This point was elaborately argued and briefed. The motion to amend was denied. See D.C., 64 F.Supp. 808.
New…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1945
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1946
3Cited by7 opinions
- Evans, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1976
- Heikkila v. BarberDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1958
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- In Re WatsonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1989
- Ohio Savings Bank v. Larson (In Re Larson)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.