Legal Opinion · Dissent

Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 10, 1939No. 275Published

1DissentL. Hand, Circuit Judge

Upon an application like this all doubts must, of course, be taken against the plaintiff; but — quite aside from the contract with Harris & Dixon, Ld. — it is clear that the defendants are threatening its customers in a way that is damaging, and may be ruinous. They are doing this by challenging its title to the oil, which they declare generally they may attach as their own, if others buy it. This they assert a privilege to do, because they say that they honestly believe the oil to be theirs: that is, that the expropriation of it by the Mexican Government will not be recognized by the courts…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903
  2. Oil Conservation Engineering Co. v. Brooks Engineering Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
  3. Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
  4. American Ball Co. v. Federal Cartridge CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  5. Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932

2 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