Legal Opinion

Federal Trust Co. v. East Hartford Fire Dist.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 3, 1922No. 234PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Plaintiff certainly had an interest in the lands condemned, and its action is for damages to that interest. It rests on the alleged unlawful act of defendant in failing to give notice or opportunity to assert its right to the plaintiff pursuant to the statute. The judgment below is in effect a holding thqt under the allegations made it is impossible, on benevolent reading of the complaint, to discover any recoverable damage.

Yet it is equally plain that, if defendant was bound by the provisions of Gen. Stat. § 5192, it failed in a duty imposed by law, and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. City of GoldsboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. United States v. State Bank of NCSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  3. Unity v. BurrageSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  4. Gray v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  5. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of MemphisDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1912

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
  2. Williams v. KaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
  3. City of Owensboro v. Board of Trustees, Etc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945
  4. In re WaltherDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1943
  5. Meyer v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API