Legal Opinion

Hirsch v. C. W. Leatherbee Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 8, 1903PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On error to Hudson Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Pitney, J.

This is an action upon contract, in the nature of an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the market value of eight thousand four hundred and thirty-five railroad ties. Plaintiffs had judgment below. Reversal is sought for alleged trial errors.

Plaintiffs were wholesale lumber dealers, having their principal office in New York City. Defendant was in the same business, with headquarters at Boston. Both parties conducted a part of their business in Brunswick, Georgia, where they severally had wharves for the receipt, shipment and storage of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Knowles Loom Works v. VacherSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
  2. Caruthers v. MooreTennessee Supreme Court · 1851
  3. Moore v. RichardsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
  4. Hopwood v. Benjamin Atha & Illingsworth Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. Arnold E. VanderseeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
  2. Young v. Harris-Cortner Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1924
  3. In re LiebigCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
  4. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. HarrisNew Jersey Circuit Court · 1944
  5. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. First National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API