Legal Opinion
Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc.-Factors v. E. P. Tatum Smith, Jr.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 28, 1967No. 16056_1PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
Plaintiff sued on a written guaranty. Defendant’s answer admitted the guaranty but denied liability. After discovery plaintiff moved for summary judgment which was granted. Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc.-Factors v. Smith, 253 F.Supp. 980 (East.D.Pa., 1966). This appeal by defendant followed.
The defendant’s basic defense below was that the parol evidence developed by discovery would be admissible at trial to explain the “valuable consideration” recital in the guaranty, and further, that it would be evidence of a failure of consideration on plaintiff’s part. We affirm on the…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc.-Factors v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
- The Chase Manhattan Bank v. Milton MayCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1963
- Pettis Walley v. The Bay Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
4Cited by19 opinions
- Mellon Bank Corporation and Mellon Bank, N.A., in No. 90-3712 v. First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments, in No. 90-3790Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Hershey Foods Corporation v. Ralph Chapek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Liberles v. County of CookCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Steinke v. Sungard Financial Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.