A, O. Smith Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois Corporation

Seventh Circuit

A, O. Smith Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois Corporation

287 F.2d 210, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 1961

Docket13128

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 287 F.2d 210 (A, O. Smith Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A, O. Smith Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois Corporation, 287 F.2d 210, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5204 (7th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinions

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation, defendant, has appealed from a summary judgment which the district court entered against it in favor of A. O. Smith Corporation, a New York corporation, plaintiff

It is alleged in defendant’s brief that the pleadings (par. 4 of the complaint), depositions and admissions on file (par. 4 of the Roberson affidavit), show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Defendant, in summarizing its argument in this court, states that the district court erred in holding that the only conclusion that can be reached from the involved instruments is that the parties contracted in writing for the purchase and sale of two tractors with trailers, that the record contains evidence that the parties did not manifest mutual assent to the terms contained in the instrument designated “Bill of Sale” and its accompanying letter dated December 2, 1960, and that the granting of summary judgment precludes admission of evidence to show the purpose for execution of the instrument designated as “Bill of Sale” and therefore was erroneous. Defendant’s brief adds that the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Defendant is in no position to urge these points upon us because it has failed to comply with the rules of this court requiring that the relevant parts of the record be reproduced in an appendix. Our rule 16(b), 28 U.S.C.A., provides:

“(b) Contents of Appendices.

“The appendix to the main brief of the appellant * * * shall contain the judgment, * * * appealed from * * * and such other parts of the record as are deemed necessary by the appellant * * * fairly to present the issues on appeal. * * * If appellant * * * raises a question of the sufficiency, of the evidence to support a finding, ruling, order, verdict or judgment, he shall include in the appendix all evidence pertinent thereto.”

For that reason, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation, defendant, has appealed from a summary judgment which the district court entered against it in favor of A. O. Smith Corporation, a New York corporation, plaintiff

It is alleged in defendant’s brief that the pleadings (par. 4 of the complaint), depositions and admissions on file (par. 4 of the Roberson affidavit), show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Defendant, in summarizing its argument in this court, states that the district court erred in holding that the only conclusion that can be reached from the involved instruments is that the parties contracted in writing for the purchase and sale of two tractors with trailers, that the record contains evidence that the parties did not manifest mutual assent to the terms contained in the instrument designated “Bill of Sale” and its accompanying letter dated December 2, 1960, and that the granting of summary judgment precludes admission of evidence to show the purpose for execution of the instrument designated as “Bill of Sale” and therefore was erroneous. Defendant’s brief adds that the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Defendant is in no position to urge these points upon us because it has failed to comply with the rules of this court requiring that the relevant parts of the record be reproduced in an appendix. Our rule 16(b), 28 U.S.C.A., provides:

“(b) Contents of Appendices.

“The appendix to the main brief of the appellant * * * shall contain the judgment, * * * appealed from * * * and such other parts of the record as are deemed necessary by the appellant * * * fairly to present the issues on appeal. * * * If appellant * * * raises a question of the sufficiency, of the evidence to support a finding, ruling, order, verdict or judgment, he shall include in the appendix all evidence pertinent thereto.”

For that reason, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 F.2d 210, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-o-smith-corporation-a-new-york-corporation-v-pre-fab-transit-co-ca7-1961.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack