Legal Opinion
L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 29, 1949No. 6, Docket 21183PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
L. HAND, Chief Judge.
Both sides appeal from the judgment in an action brought by the Albert Company, which we shall speak of as the Seller, against the Armstrong Company, which we shall call the Buyer. The action was to re- • cover the agreed price of four “Refiners,” machines designed to recondition old rubber; the contract of sale was by an exchange of letters in December, 1942, and the Seller delivered two of the four “Refiners” in August, 1943, and the other two on either August 31st or September 8th, 1945. Because of the delay in delivery of the second two, the Buyer refused to accept…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Santoro v. MackSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Jordan, Marsh & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Bernstein v. . MeechNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. BresslerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Westfed Holdings, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Cary Oil Co., Inc. v. MG Refining and MarketingDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Hidalgo Properties, Inc. v. Wachovia Mortgage Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.