Fosburgh v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtWolverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Motion was presented at the hearing to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that, subsequent to the entry of the decree in the District Court, the sugar company had drawn against the letters of credit for the purchase price of the sugar, and that the draft had been duly honored and paid. As, however, the motion does not seem to be strenuously *31insisted upon, we waive it, and proceed to a decision upon the merits of the cause.
Substantially but one question is presented for consideration, which is whether, by reason of the presence of clauses 6 and 7, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Distillers Co. Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. PezetelDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1978
- Independent Iron Works, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.