Legal Opinion

Riley v. Pierce Oil Corporation

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 3, 1927PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

This judgment should be affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff seeks a recovery on the theory:

1. That certain oil belonging to him situated in Mexico was there converted by the defendant, and

2. That a certain contract made in Mexico between himself and a Mexican corporation binds the defendant, either as an undisclosed principal or because, having complete, control of the Mexican corporation, the contract was in fact made with it. Whatever might be the rule in New York, there is a failure of proof on both branches ■ of the case.

A recovery in conversion is d,pendent upon proof of title in or a…

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. M. Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Joseph A. Weiss v. Emerich HunnaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
  3. Mattox v. News Syndicate Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
  4. John P. Loebig v. George H. LarucciCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
  5. Belgium, S.A. v. Phosphate Chemicals Export Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

13 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