Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Chesapeake Transit Co. v. Mott

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 15, 1909No. 18Published

In Error to Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

1Concurrence

ARCHBALD, District Judge.

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and the refusal of a reargument, and I agree with what has been said as to the work done under the second or substitute contract affording no evidence of the damage for failure to perform the first one. Not that it might not have done so, perhaps, but that it did not, because of the way that it was sought to make use of it. I would not, however, rest the decision there, but would go further, and hold, with the court below, that there was an abandonment of the first contract, which released the surety; a pronouncement upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Bonding Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
  2. Chesapeake Transit Co. v. WalkerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1908
  3. John A. Tolman Co. v. HunterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  4. McCarthy v. American Thread Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API