Legal Opinion
Electrical Products Consolidated v. Sweet
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided April 7, 1936No. 1330-1332PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McDERMOTT, Circuit Judge.
These three appeals involve three contracts with three bankrupts. Common to all of them is a question of the interpretation of similar contracts for the construction and maintenance of Neon advertising signs.
Neon signs are constructed to order; there is a substantial expense to maintenance and service. When they are dismantled, they have no substantial salvage value, the cost of dismantling ordinarily approximating the junk value of the materials salvaged. Sometimes the sign may be sold, in which case it does have substantial value. It is not practicable to break down…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Central Trust Co. of Ill. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Kothe v. R. C. Taylor TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Manhattan Properties, Inc. v. Irving Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Irving Trust Co. v. A. W. Perry, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ray v. Electrical Products ConsolidatedWyoming Supreme Court · 1964
- Baer Bros. Land & Cattle Co. v. PalmerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
- Young Electric Sign Company v. CappsIdaho Supreme Court · 1971
- Electrical Products Corp. v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1953
- In re Grodnik's, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.