Neff & Fry Co. v. Ashmead
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMack, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Appellant contends: (1) That the court erred in striking the defenses and counterclaims, because fraud in the procurement of a written contract is, within section 274b of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 398), a proper defense in an action.at law, and may be established by oral proof; and (2) that the evidence of the single witness produced was insufficient to warrant the direction of a verdict for the full amount of damages claimed.
Appellee contends: (1) That, since the allegations of fraud on their face contradicted the specific terms of the written contract,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thomas v. . BeebeNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Scandinavian-American BankDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1917
- Fiorito v. Clyde Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
3Cited by3 opinions
- Arthur D. OTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Gamble-Robinson Co. v. BuzzardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933