Pacific Improvement Co. v. Weidenfeld
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Action by Camille Weidenfeld against the Pacific Improvement Company. Judgment for plaintiff on the verdict of a jury, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
HOUGH, Circuit Judge.
The facts of this as pleaded, admitted, or proven beyond any doubt, are in our judgment sufficient to dispose of the litigation. We shall therefore state their substance, leaving without comment several matters of law much argued at bar.
The gist of complaint is that plaintiff (Weidenfeld) was in 1893 the liquidating partner of his firm, and in respect of the transactions producing this litigation may be spoken of as the sole actor, although it had been the firm that had long dealt with defendant. He had deposited with defendant (Pacific Company) in or before 1893 various…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. ZimaNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. McAlisterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Strawn v. State Ex Rel. AnderbergSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
- Weidenfeld v. Pacific Improvement Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Sanderson v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.