Legal Opinion

Keeler v. Fred T. Ley & Co.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided May 16, 1931No. 2544PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

This was an action for deceit in inducing the plaintiffs to enter into contracts. At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence the court ordered a verdict for' the defendant. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to have their evidence considered in its aspect most favorable to them. Gray v. Davis, etc. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 57; Union Pacific R. R. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535, 539, 38 S. Ct. 187, 62 L. Ed. 455; Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 233 U. S. 184, 34 S. Ct. 559, 58 L. Ed. 906.

There was evidence tending to show facts as follows: In the fall of 1927 the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Simar v. . CanadayNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  4. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. HarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  5. People v. . PeckensNew York Court of Appeals · 1897

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. United States v. RoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
  3. Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
  4. Jones v. Fenton Ford, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
  5. Hughes Provision Co. v. La Mear Poultry & Egg Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951

5 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