Legal Opinion

Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Atol

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided January 24, 1952No. Civ. 2130PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DONOVAN, District Judge.

Examination of the complaint discloses two.causes of action, each based upon a guaranty and indemnification agreement executed by defendant on December 1, 1947. In due course all rights thereunder and against defendant were assigned to plaintiff, and the second cause of action is brought “to collect a balance due * * * which * * * now amounts to the sum of * * * $6,089.01.” It is with reference to this that defendant says he “is without any information as to what items constituted the original account, what items constitute the balance referred to, and what items…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Dioguardi v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  3. Sparks v. EnglandCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
  4. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. RamDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1950
  5. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. JaffursDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1951

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. American Linen Supply CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1956
  2. Boerstler v. American Medical Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1954
  3. Mattson v. Cuyuna Ore Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1959
  4. Wilson v. Illinois Central RailroadDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1957
  5. McBeath v. PierceDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1952

1 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