Federal Coal Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We can see no reasonable question of the correctness of the court’s ruling upon the first cause of action. Indeed, the letter of September 6th was not intended to be the permanent obligation of the defendant, but only a contract with the buyer to write a letter of credit to the Jacksonville bank, which it did on the next day, and which was intended to be performance of the contract laid in the complaint. However, we see no reason to press this feature of the cause, and do not mean to rest our decision upon it, or upon any rights which its analysis might…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Logan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Attorney General v. PelletierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Sims v. . SimsNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- National Trust Co. v. . GleasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Ball v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- (SS) Davis v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- (SS) Hallum v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (SS)Potter Gibbons v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022