Legal Opinion
Arthur v. Baron de Hirsch Fund
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 25, 1903No. 66PublishedCited by 5 opinions
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
1Opinion of the Court
WALLACE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff in the court below, sued to recover damages for breach by the defendant of an alleged contract on the part of the defendant to furnish purchasers for certain houses which the plaintiff agreed to erect. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish the contract alleged. This ruling was based upon the interpretation of a written contract between the parties executed August 15, 1899.
The plaintiff is a contractor and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hudson Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Zorkowski v. . AstorNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cousins Investment Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Loyalton Electric Light Co. v. California Pine Box & Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
- Black v. Richfield Oil Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1941
- Amalgamated Gum Co. v. Casein Co. of AmericaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1906
- In re the Estate of StritchNew York Surrogate's Court · 1965