Legal Opinion
Dunn v. Mayo Mills
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 1, 1905No. 24PublishedCited by 7 opinions
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
In this opinion the parties will be designated in accordance with their respective positions in the court below; that is to say, the defendant in error will be referred to as plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error as defendants. The action was brought to recover $2,234.21, the balance claimed to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff upon an alleged contract in writing, which in the plaintiff’s statement of claim was set forth as follows:
*805“The Mayo Mills, H. M. Daniel, Manager.
“517-519 Philadelphia Bourse.
“No. 1063. Nov. 5, 1900.
“Sold to Hazle Knitting Mills,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Mexican Central Railway Co. v. PinkneySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Tilton v. CofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co. v. GoddardSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1875
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ferguson v. DicksonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- Texas Co. v. Brilliant Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- State v. RedmondMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- Harding, Whitman & Co. v. York Knitting MillsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Pennsylvania · 1905
- Truckee River General Electric Co. v. BennerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.