Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fiberchem, Inc. v. General Plastics Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 9, 1974No. 72-1902Published

1DissentSneed, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent.

In holding that Rowland is liable to Fiberchem for sales commissions on general and follow-up orders, the majority draws heavily from two lines of authority. The first, the “latent equity” analysis, is viewed by the majority as standing for the proposition that “the as-signee takes his claim subject to the equities of third persons against the assigned right where he has knowledge of such equities.” In' my opinion this proposition is properly applied only in situations where a third party asserts a claim to the funds also claimed by the assignee. See generally, Comment,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Chandler v. Washington Toll Bridge AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Cascaden v. MagrytaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Poggi v. Tool Research & Engineering Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Brown v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  5. Levenbaum v. Hanover Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

2 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