Legal Opinion

In re Weisl

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 11, 1924PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBearned Hand, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The first point concerns the character of the transactions; the second, the putative estoppel. The trustees do not claim except by estoppel, any goods shipped on consignment, nor the petitioner any goods sent- direct to customers, which in the nature of things would not come to the trustees’ possession. This leaves only shipments sent on those of Dudley’s orders which contained prices. All fish shipped on orders to Eastport containing prices were shipped direct to customers and are out of the suit. It follows that the only fish in controversy are those…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ludvigh v. American Woolen Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Taylor v. FramCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
  3. Miller Rubber Co. v. Citizens' Trust & Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Edgewood Shoe Factories, Division of General Shoe Corp. v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API