City of Eau Claire v. Payson
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
On Petition for Rehearing.
1Opinion of the Court
WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The first point decided on this appeal was that, the city of Eau Claire and the water company both being corporations of Wisconsin, the assignee of one of them could not sue the other upon the contract between them in a federal court.,, To this two objections are now urged. The first is that the contract of the city was not with the water company, hut with Fairbanks, Morse & Co., described in the ordinance as “of the city of Chicago, state of Illinois.” Does the fact affect the relations of the parties to this suit? It is shown both by the hill and by the petition of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Krippendorf v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- White v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Metcalf v. WatertownSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Sage v. Memphis & Little Rock RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- New York Guaranty Company v. Memphis Water CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Carey v. McMillanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- Beach v. Beach Hotel CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Whelan v. Enterprise Transp. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1908
- American Waterworks & Guarantee Co. v. Home Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.