Saranac Mach. Co. v. Heyward
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GRUBB, District Judge.
These two cases present one and the same question — in the first, by the method of appeal; in the second, by petition to superintend and revise in matter of law. As the facts are not in conflict, and the question presented is purely one of law, we think the petition to superintend and revise is the appropriate method of presenting the question.
The question is whether a conditional sale contract to secure the purchase, money of personal property sold by the appellant and petitioner to the bankrupt was so executed as to be legally admitted to record under the laws of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Peagler v. DavisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- Missouri State Life Insurance v. Barnes Construction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HammondSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Spink v. Guarantee B. & T. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Maddox v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
3Cited by5 opinions
- Central Union Trust Co. v. Appalachian Corp.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1924
- In re Dublin Veneer Co.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1932
- Webb v. United-American Soda Fountain Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1932
- Nalley Chevrolet, Inc. v. California BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- People's First Nat. Bank of Quitman v. Coe Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933