Legal Opinion
Stockton Commission Co. v. Narragansett Cotton Mills, Inc.
District Court, D. Rhode Island
Decided March 23, 1926No. 1735PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEOWN, District Judge.
As the written instruments, Exhibits A and B, are expressly made part of the plaintiff’s declaration, their terms must prevail over any statement in the declaration that is inconsistent with the true construction of these documents. Howe v. Larkin (C. C.) 119 F. 1005; Jobbins v. Kendall Mfg. Co., 196 F. 216 (decisions in this district). See, also, Vital et al. v. Kerr (C. C. A.) 297 F. 959, 962.
Exhibit A shows proposals, but'these in some respects are inconsistent with the terms agreed upon in Exhibit B, and it cannot be regarded as a document that evidences any…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Friede v. White Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
- Creveling v. Wood & LemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Newhall v. Victor Box Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Vital v. KerrCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Cannon v. StaplesSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Baumer v. Franklin County Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Southern Music Pub. Co. v. Walt Disney ProductionsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Pennsylvania R. Co. v. HustonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1936
- Baumer v. Franklin County Distilling Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.