Cobb v. Hills-Corbet Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The appellants contend that it was error to hold that the contract was am agreement for a conditional sale, and they argue that at the time when it was made the appellees had nothing to sell, that the lumber company was merely employing them to build and equip their mill according to plans and specifications at a cost not to exceed a specified sum, that in buying the machinery and fulfilling the contract the appellees were merely agents or employees, and that in paying for the same out of their own funds they but advanced the purchase money as agents for…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bailey v. Baker Ice MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Heryford v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Field v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- John W. Sullivan Co. v. Mutual Trust Co. of Westchester CountyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- In Re HalfertyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- Braden v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- Doullut & Ewin, Inc. v. Mobile Paint Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1929
- Ford Bros. v. Frederick M. Ward Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928