Legal Opinion

Brocalsa Chemical Co. v. Langsenkamp

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 5, 1929No. 5070PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenison, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The subject of fraudulent misleading may be summarily disposed of. There is no allegation of any misstatement as to the value of the bonds, or, indeed, any pleading claim that they were not worth the price paid. There is no substan tial proof of any plan or representation that the proceeds of the bonds were not to be used for all ordinary corporate purposes, naturally including the refunding in a longtime form of debts whieh were due or currently to become due — indeed, on their face the bonds were refunding bonds. It would not normally be very important to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Merrick Et Al. v. N. W. Halsey & Company Et Al., and the Weis Fibre Container CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. Chattanooga National Building & Loan Ass'n v. DensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1903

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Singer v. Magnavox Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1977
  2. Perlmuter Printing Co. v. Strome, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1976
  3. Edward Mahalsky and Paul Logue v. The Salem Tool CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1972
  4. Brown v. Market Development, Inc., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1974
  5. McBreen v. Iceco, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1957

4 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