Legal Opinion

Jubas v. Sampsell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 14, 1950No. 12524_1PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

_ATC _. . , STEPHENS, Circuit Judge, ’ J

The court’s Findings of Fact are to the following purport and are unquestioned:

A copartnership composed of Gene L J ‘ f FaíTan. and Leo G- 01son was conducting a retail shoe business under the fictitious name of Fashion Bootery. The copartnership was adjudged a bankrupt and plaintiff-appellee thereafter became Trustee jn Bankruptcy. While yet solvent, the COpartnership sold 1240 pairs of shoes « . , , , £ which were of broken sizes and out of , ^ _ stylc: Tbey had “st betwcen $5'25 and $^*25 per pair and defendant-appellant purchased them for their then…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schainman v. DeanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  2. Markwell & Co. v. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Murdock v. Plymouth Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Curtina International, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  2. Sternberg v. RubensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  3. Curtis B. Danning, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Daylin, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
  4. Roberts v. NorrellDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1963
  5. Reed v. Anglo Scandinavian CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1969

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