Legal Opinion
Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 25, 1924No. 50PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The substance of plaintiff’s contention is that all the cars above referred to furnish iten* of damage properly assignable to its second cause of action. 270 Fed. 522. This court held, when the case was here before, that the contract meant that, when defendant wanted cars embodying plaintiff’s patented devices, or any of them, plaintiff was entitled to bid, and to bid in a way that was not “good business,” viz. to take the work if it was wanted, at the lowest bid made plus 10 per cent. But we did not hold that, if plaintiff had an opportunity to bid and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lowrey v. HawaiiSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. KoehlerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Sanders v. MunsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
- Nelson v. Ohio Cultivator Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Kenyon v. Automatic Instrument Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Eno Systems, Inc. v. EnoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- O'Bryan v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Gould Securities Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.