Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Gamble
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge. Action at law by Henry Gamble against the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
1Per curiam
This ease is here for the third time. See 158 Fed. 49, 85 C. C. A. 379; 201 Fed. 329, 119 C. C. A. 567. Any further statement of facts is unnecessary. The plaintiff again recovered a verdict, and the substantial complaint against the recovery is that there is no evidence tending to show any causal relation between the original offer and the later purchase, which causal relation we thought vital to plaintiff’s case. 201 Fed. 331, 119 C. C. A. 567. The sufficiency of the examination and estimate by the Cleveland Company to serve as the intervening link, as suggested in our last opinion, is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. GambleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Gamble v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908