Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McNeal-Edwards Co. v. Frank L. Young Co.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided July 22, 1931No. 2345Published

1Concurrence

WILSON, Circuit Judge.

I concur in the result upon the ground that, even if the alleged breach had been properly pleaded, it would not have been a good defense to the action brought by the Young Company, since the agreement to return the drums was an independent stipulation and not a condition precedent to the agreement to deliver oil of a certain grade. The ease is governed by the rule laid down in Proprietors of Mill Dam Foundery v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417, 437-439; Cadwell v. Blake, 6 Gray, 402; Boston Blower Co. v. Brown, 149 Mass. 421, 426, 21 N. E. 883; Cox v. Wiley, 183 Mass. 410, 67 N. E.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kauffman v. RaederCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
  2. Emigrant Co. v. County of AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  3. Cox v. WileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  4. Boston Blower Co. v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  5. Ainesworth Coal & Iron Co. v. Trafikaktiedolaget Grangesberg OxelosundCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1923

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