Jack Frost v. Nathanael Davis

Petitioner correctly points out that this court, in its opinion of May 20,1965 (346 F.2d 82), made three erroneous factual statements, two of which lie in our failure to treat as separate and distinct, the interest of Frost, on the one hand, and that of Hidrocarburos, Frost’s assignee, on the other. Without piercing Hidro-carburos’ corporate veil, we hold that the legal interests of Frost and Hidro-carburos are identical for all purposes material to this case, since, as a party to the final assignment, Frost was the contemplated creditor Beneficiary of Davis’ promise to Hidrocarburos.

It was…