Studebaker Corp. of America v. Wilson
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge. Assumpsit by Grin S. Wilson against the Studebaker Corporation of America. There was a judgment for plaintiff (240 Fed. 801), and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The question involved in this case is the construction of a written contract. If the construction adopted by the court below was right, the verdict and judgment below should stand. If that construction is wrong, then the defendant’s prayer for binding instructions in its favor was erroneously refused.
Turning to the contract in question, we find it was one providing for the supply by a manufacturer of automobiles in Detroit to an automobile dealer in Philadelphia. From this agreement, the material parts of which we hereinafter quote (see the margin 1), it will be seen *404…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kirkmyer Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
- General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
- Motor Car Supply Co. v. General Household Utilities Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
- Kane v. Chrysler CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1948
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.