Legal Opinion

Wilson & Co. v. Douredoure

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 15, 1946No. 9026PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff brought an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover $20,674.66 paid by it to Douredoure Brothers through an alleged mistake of fact. The defendants admitted the receipt of the money, denied that the payments were the result of a mistake of fact and counter-claimed for an additional $2,501.85. Douredoure Brothers brought Keystone Rendering Company, Inc., into the suit as third party defendant. The case was tried by a judge of the district court without a jury. He denied recovery to the plaintiff and entered judgment on…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Allshouse v. RamsaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  2. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. BeneventoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1945
  3. Lauffer v. VialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  4. Capraro v. PropatiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1940
  5. Gilberton Fuels, Inc. v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nissenberg v. FellemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
  2. United States Ex Rel. Hunt v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Quinn v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (In Re Sturm)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. T & L Leasing Corp. v. General Electric Credit Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Rodek v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API