Legal Opinion

Daniels v. Goldberg

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 5, 1949No. 21251PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, -Circuit Judge.

1. Defendant (relying on his exception to the charge and on the denials of his requests -to charge) contends that the judge erred in telling the jury that it must decide for plaintiff unless “there was a full and complete agreement.” Defendant thus asser-ts that the jury should have -been told that defendant mu-st win if the jury •found an understanding that the notes were to -be replaced by five-year notes if defendant bought -the factory.3 For the purpose of deciding this case, we have viewed it as if defendant’s answer had been amended to -conform to the evidence, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jamestown Business College Assn. v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Smith v. . DotterweichNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Niblock v. . SpragueNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  4. Hoagland, Allum & Co. v. Allan-Norman Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Joseph A. Weiss v. Emerich HunnaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
  2. Federal Facilities Realty Trust v. KulpCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1955
  3. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, a Corporation v. City of Seattle, Wash., a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  4. United States v. RutkinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
  5. Robert Edmond v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API