Legal Opinion
Lamborn v. Woodard
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided July 5, 1927No. 2579PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BAKER, District Judge.
Lamborn & Co., plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, wore engaged, among other things, in buying and selling of sugar. James A. Woodard-Holmes Company, defendants in error, defendants below, were wholesale merchants located in the small town (population about 3,000) of Edenton, N. C.; their trade being largely rural and consisting in sales to small country stores. It will tend to a clearer understanding if they be designated by the positions they occupied in the trial court.
The plaintiffs, under date of June 8, 1920, sent to defendants a telegram reading as follows:
“Sava…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. CooganSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Columbus Rolling MillSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Robinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Rucker v. SandersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- South Carolina Asparagus Growers' Ass'n v. Southern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
- United States v. Citizens and Southern National Bank of Atlanta, GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1966
- Brandon v. HolmanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Norfolk Southern Bus Corp. v. LaskCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Consolidated Textile Corp. v. ShippCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.