Legal Opinion
Walter v. Rowlands
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 22, 1928No. 5462PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
It is assigned as error that in answer to the question, what Was his understanding of the condition of the C. A. Goodyear Lumber Company at the time of entering into the contract of March 23, 1923, Lamont Rowlands was permitted to testify that his understanding was that the company was in a very serious condition, and that “the report of the president to the stockholders indicated that.” It is objected that the testimony was proof, not of the fact of financial difficulties, but only of Rowland’s state of mind. To this it is to be said that the state of mind…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lowrey v. HawaiiSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Miller v. Spring Garden Ins.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
- Neal v. AkersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1923
- Standard Scale & Supply Co. v. ReiterCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Haid v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
- Great American Indemnity Company v. William P. RoseCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
- Thompson v. Baltimore & OR Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1945