Hunter-Wilson Distilling Co., Inc. v. Foust Distilling Co

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s contract action, tried to the Court alone, resulted in favor of the de*544fendant-appellee on the main issue involved, and on the counter-claim. It is these two items with which we are concerned in this appeal. The facts, as justifiably found by the District Judge, are that, in March 1940, appellee sold to Wilson Company 2535 barrels of rye whiskey then on storage in its warehouse. Proper warehouse receipts were issued. As part of the transaction, appellee gave Wilson Company an admitted warranty covering excess outage.1 This reads: “We also wish to advise…