Legal Opinion
Wulfsohn v. Russo-Asiatic Bank
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 22, 1926No. 4343PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the United States Court for China. The ease was heard on an amended petition, answer, and reply. The amended petition alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff is a banking corporation organized under the laws of Russia, with offices in Shanghai, Harbin, and other places in China and elsewhere; that the defendants are copartners having a place of business in New York City, and maintaining an agent in Harbin and elsewhere in China, within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for China; that during the years 1919 and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- China Press, Inc. v. WebbCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- United States v. GentryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Joint Stock Co. v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
3Cited by16 opinions
- Weiss v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1941
- Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- Namerdy v. GeneralcarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1966
- United States v. BransenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Baltimore & OR Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.