Legal Opinion

Arnold v. National Aniline & Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 6, 1927No. 90PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAugustus N. Hand, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). . The assumption of the court that the representations were false makes it impossible to determine how material was the falsity of the representations, or what loss the defendants incurred by taking over sales contracts which may not have been anything like what on their face they seemed. It may be- that the situation, if it had been properly developed, was such that no question of fraud could have been properly submitted to a jury. But the court assumed that the representations said to have been made as an inducement to the execution of the contract were…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Callanan v. . K., A.C. L.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Bridger v. . GoldsmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  4. Industrial General Trust, Ltd. v. . TodNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
  5. Haight v. . HaytNew York Court of Appeals · 1859

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Snyder v. LovercheckWyoming Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Ocean Cape Hotel Corp. v. Masefield Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  3. Bryant v. TroutmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1956
  4. Nachman Spring-Filled Corporation v. Kay Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  5. Turkish v. KasenetzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994

17 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