Lewiston Milling Co. v. Cardiff
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Central Division of the District of Idaho; Frank S. Dietrich, Judge. Action at law by Ira D. Cardiff and others, partners as Ira D. Cardiff & Co., against the Uewiston Milling Company, Eimitcd. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. This writ of error is prosecuted by defendant below, and for convenience reference will be made to the parties litigant as plaintiffs and defendant.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Central Division of the District of Idaho; Frank S. Dietrich, Judge. Action at law by Ira D. Cardiff and others, partners as Ira D. Cardiff & Co., against the Uewiston Milling Company, Eimitcd. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. This writ of error is prosecuted by defendant below, and for convenience reference will be made to the parties litigant as plaintiffs and defendant. Recovery is sought of part of the purchase price alleged to be yet due plaintiffs upon a sale to the defendant of dehydrated potatoes. The…
1Opinion of the CourtWoeverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts -as above). The first question presented for our consideration is whether the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, at the. close of the testimony, to return a verdict for defendant. Counsel assert insufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the j ury in several particulars, namely: That corporate execution of the written contract is not shown; that the product furnished did not conform to sample; that it appears that the sul-phur dioxide used by plaintiffs in processing the potatoes is an added in*755gredient, which may have rendered the article injurious…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Pope v. AllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- S. S. Pass Ry. Co. v. TrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- State v. DennyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Larson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Europak, Inc. v. County of HuntCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Sig. C. Mayer & Co. v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Baker v. J. C. Watson Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1943
- Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.