Legal Opinion
In re A. E. Fountain, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 3, 1922No. Nos. 182, 303PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAugustus N. Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). In the proceeding by the Bank of the Manhattan Company to reclaim the dolls which came into the possession of the receiver, there is. no proof that the dolls referred to in the trust receipt were set apart. A. E. Fountain, Jr., says in his affidavit that he “saw to it that certain quantities of goods, of certain lot numbers, were upon the shelves of A. E. Fountain, Inc., and I thereupon listed such good# which I had in mind as being the subject of the trust receipt.” A. E- Fountain, Sr., says that no merchandise was “set aside, marked or appropriated,” that…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- National City Bank of NY v. HotchkissSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Kimberly v. . PatchinNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Commercial National Bank v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Farmers and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. . LoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- In Re James, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Hamilton Nat. Bank v. McCallumCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- McLeod-nash Motors, Inc. v. Commercial Credit TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- In Re Ford-Rennie Leather Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1924
- In Re Otto-Johnson Mercantile Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 1928
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.