American Trading Co. v. North Alaska Salmon Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Wm. C. Van Fleet, Judge. Action by the American Trading Company (Pacific Coast), a corporation, against the North Alaska Salmon Company, a corporation. There was a judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages, and it brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Wm. C. Van Fleet, Judge. Action by the American Trading Company (Pacific Coast), a corporation, against the North Alaska Salmon Company, a corporation. There was a judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages, and it brings error. The plaintiff in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, was engaged in the brokerage business, and for several years prior to 1911 had purchased the greater part of the output of do-over salmon known as the Archer brand, produced by the defendant,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [ 1 ] The plaintiff contends that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the evidence and to the court’s instructions. The assignments of error on which the contention is based are that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, in that the evidence shows that the salmon here involved was unfit for human consumption, and that there was an utter failure of consideration for the money paid by the plaintiff, and that the verdict and judgment were contrary to the evidence, in that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was damaged in a sum exceeding the amount…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. HenseySupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Dinet v. Rapid CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
- Mills v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co. v. PetkunasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Continental Nat. Bank v. NevilleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
- Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co. v. ColeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931