Legal Opinion
Equipment Acceptance Corp. v. Arwood Can Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 5, 1941No. 8443PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Circuit Judge.
This controversy' between citizens of different states comes to us on appeal from the dismissal of an action brought by a finance compány as assignee of a promissory note and conditional sales contract signed by Arwood Can Manufacturing Company, purchaser of certain machinery from the Max Ams Company, manufacturer. As endorsers of the note in suit, D. G. Arwood and Luke H. Arwood, officers of appellee company, were joined as co-defendants.
An amended decree in the District Court included a finding that the payee of the note, the Max Ams Company, procured the negotiable…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kirby v. TallmadgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Standard Oil Co. v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- President, Directors & Co. of Mechanics' Bank v. New-York & New Haven RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Motor Contract Co. v. Van Der VolgenWashington Supreme Court · 1931
- San Francisco Securities Corp. v. Phoenix Motor Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1923
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Coyle Lines, Inc. v. United States. United States v. Coyle Lines, IncCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
- National Labor Relations Board v. Ohio Calcium Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Ohio Associated Tel. Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
- Lofstrom v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005
- Walter J. Hieb Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1960
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.