Legal Opinion

In re M. J. Hoey & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 9, 1927No. 276PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). We do not find it necessary to re-examine the findings made in the court below. After confirmation by the District Judge of the commissioner’s report, we should in any event have to be well satisfied that they were wrong before we reversed them, Brookheim v. Greenbaum, 225 F. 763 (C. C. A. 2), and this is especially true where all the documentary evidence looks one way. In such a case, where one party asserts that what both have solemnly and repeatedly declared, they did not mean at all, he bears a heavy burden of proof, Atwater v. Guernsey, 254 U. S. 423,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Benedict v. RatnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Sexton v. Kessler & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. Ludvigh v. American Woolen Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Brookheim v. GreenbaumCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
  5. Atwater v. GuernseySupreme Court of the United States · 1921

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re the Accounting of GrunerNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
  2. In Re Bernard & KatzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  3. Kolkman v. Manufacturers' Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  4. Edwards v. Sterling Nat. Bank & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934
  5. In re Prudence Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1936

3 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