Legal Opinion
Russell v. Harriman Land Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York
Decided March 29, 1906PublishedCited by 4 opinions
On Motion to Remand to State Court.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, District Judge.
On the 27th day of October, 1905, the parties hereto, and another, entered into an agreement whereby were fixed the terms of settlement of differences involved in the above action and in other actions. Such agreement contained the following provision:
“This agreement of settlement is to be binding and effective from tills date unless disapproved by a majority of tbe directors of Tbe Harriman Land Company, and shall be consummated between tbe parties as soon as approved *746by a majority of such directors. Until so approved or disapproved, the parties hereto agree to take no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. American Bridge Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1905
- Schipper v. Consumer Cordage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895
- Mayer v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899
- McBratney v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hinman v. BarrettDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1917
- Tevis v. Palatine Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1906
- Bon v. Midwest Refining Co.District Court, D. Wyoming · 1929
- Solomon v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, E.D. New York · 1917