Cray, McFawn & Co. v. Hegarty, Conroy & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
The record supports the crucial findings of fact of the district judge, so that we cannot hold them to be “clearly erroneous”. Rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Hegarty’s testimony, which the judge accepted, was that it -was well understood by everyone on July 19, 1935, that his firm alone was to accept any part of the risk of the purchase, and that nobody had any interest in the venture except Grier, and he only by way of “finder’s fee”. Grier disclaimed this but asked that the plaintiff among others should have a participation, the amount of which was to be left to Hegarty’s…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Davidson v. RobieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1963
- Clamitz v. Thatcher Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Flanigan v. Security-First Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1941
- Trounstine v. Bauer, Pogue & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Award Incentives, Inc. v. Van RooyenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.