Legal Opinion
Harold Hamilton v. Stillwell Van and Storage Co., in No. 14954, and Dean Van Lines, Inc., in No. 14955
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 16, 1965No. 14955_1PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Per curiam
These appeals are from the order of the district court of April 24, 1964, denying defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The case was tried to the court. We agree with the district court that plaintiff established the condition, quality and value of his goods (which were destroyed by fire while in the possession of the defendants) by the best evidence available to him. We are satisfied that these proofs fairly support the verdict rendered with two exceptions, later noted. We agree with the district court that the proofs establish that defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Crosby v. Pacific S. S. Lines, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
3Cited by21 opinions
- Richerson v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,198 Roy Huey v. Teledyne, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- James Q. Horne, Jr. v. Adolph Coors Company R. S. Woods, Inc. And Kingston Wine and Liquor Shop, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Lawrence E. Hodge v. Ernestine HodgeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- In the Matter of Grand Jury Impaneled January 21, 1975 (Two Cases). Appeal of Abraham E. Freedman, in No. 76-1248. Appeal of Americo v. Cortese, in No. 76-1276Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.