Legal Opinion

Warner & Swasey Co. v. Ruster-Holz

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided October 27, 1941No. 232 CivilPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SULLIVAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment pursuant lo Rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28, U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in its favor. The defendant has made a like motion for judgment in her favor. The motions are based upon the pleadings and the stipulation of facts filed herein. It is unnecessary to recite the facts, since the same are fully set out in the stipulation.

The plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon the so-called option agreement contained in the trust instrument, and also upon the agreement between plaintiff, Miss Swasey and the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. New England Trust Co. v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  2. Potter v. CouchSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Kingston v. Home Life Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1917
  4. Farmers' Mercantile & Supply Co. v. LaunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Perkins v. TrinkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gamble v. Penn Valley Crude Oil Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1954
  2. Gamble v. Penn Valley Crude Oil Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1954
  3. Florance v. Mercantile National Bank at DallasCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. Matter of FloranceCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. In Re Estate of B. Joseph Rath, Deceased. The Detroit Bank and Trust Company, and Catherine Rath, Survivingwife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API