Cleveland Trust Co. v. Lamborn
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is the second appeal of this ease. On the former we held, 29 F.(2d) 46, that the lower court should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff because the trust company was estopped from making the defense upon which it relied. We did not deem it necessary to pass upon the merits of: the defense; that is, the sufficiency of the documents supporting plaintiffs’ draft. Upon the retrial, the court directed a verdict in accordance with our opinion. The evidence on that trial was in the main the same as that introduced on the first. The defendant contends that it was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jenkins & Reynolds Co. v. Alpena Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
- Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. HoweCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
- In re FreshmanDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1923
- Lamborn v. Cleveland Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928