Legal Opinion

Mallory S. S. Co. v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 7, 1923No. 276PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). As the result of the error of Tozzi, its agent at Constanza, defendant was liable in conversion for damages. The assignments of error raise four principal points: (1) The rule as to ascertaining the value of the goods; (2) judicial notice; (3) the exclusion by the court below of a certain contract between Mogenson and Brill; and (4) lack of evidence to establish the contents of the cases of goods when delivered to defendant.

First. The place of conversion and the place of destination of the goods having been the same, and no subsidiary question having arisen…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cahen v. . PlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. Grand Tower Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  3. The Arctic BirdDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1901
  4. In re B. & R. Glove Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  5. Delafield v. J. K. Armsby Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bank of California, N. A. v. International Mercantile Marine Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
  2. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd. v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  3. Crawford, McGregor & Canby Co. v. Thomas E. Wilson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API