Cincinnati Distributing Co. v. Sherwood & Sherwood Commercial Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge. Action by the Cincinnati Distributing Company against the Sherwood & Sherwood Commercial Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
GIIyBER'I', Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error brought an action-in tire court below to recover damages for breach of contract which it made with the defendant for the sale and delivery of merchandise. The court below granted a nonsuit, on the ground that the contract was within the statute of frauds and no written memorandum thereof was signed by the defendant. This ruling is assigned as error. The evidence was that on March 14, 1918, Heilman, a representative of the plaintiff, had a conversation over the telephone with Tieb, who represented the defendant. Heilman testified that he agreed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Nason v. LingleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Regan v. KirkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Miller v. HartCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906