Legal Opinion

Neff & Fry Co. v. Ashmead

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 9, 1929No. 87PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Thomas v. . BeebeNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
  2. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Scandinavian-American BankDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1917
  3. Fiorito v. Clyde Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Arthur D. OTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
  2. Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
  3. Gamble-Robinson Co. v. BuzzardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API