Legal Opinion
In Re Taub
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 2, 1924No. 34PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is proven, and
was we think admitted, that Small and Taub were joint adventurers in the enterprise of procuring fruit in the vicinity of Yakima and marketing it in New York. The relation is now legally well known; it implies an agreement, but that agreement may not only be shown by parol (Burkardt v. Walsh, 49 App. Div. 634, 64 N. Y. S. 779); it may be implied in whole or in part from the conduct of the parties (33 C. J. 847, citing eases). The form of agreement is immaterial. It is the nature of the enterprise undertaken by a plurality of persons that…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Irvine v. CampbellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Reid v. ShafferCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- In re McConnellDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1912
- O'Hara v. HarmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- George F. Hinrichs, Inc. v. Standard Trust & Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. v. George P. Mitchell, George P. Mitchell v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Yonofsky v. WernickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- Consolidated Fisheries Co. v. Consolidated Solubles Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1955
- MTV Networks, a Division of Viacom International, Inc. v. CurryDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Chapman v. DwyerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.