Balbach v. Surprise

Seventh Circuit

Balbach v. Surprise

236 F. 1018, 149 C.C.A. 667, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1916

DocketNo. 2321

StatusPublished

This text of 236 F. 1018 (Balbach v. Surprise) 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

Balbach v. Surprise, 236 F. 1018, 149 C.C.A. 667, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2367 (7th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question involved in the case is whether or not the evidence justified the conclusion of facts, madeTiy the referee and affirmed by the trial judge, that both parties intended, not an actual business transaction, a delivery of the grains bought and sold at the future time des[1019]*1019ignated for delivery, but only a settlement of the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time fixed for delivery. From an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the referee and affirmed by the District Court was proper. The order is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question involved in the case is whether or not the evidence justified the conclusion of facts, madeTiy the referee and affirmed by the trial judge, that both parties intended, not an actual business transaction, a delivery of the grains bought and sold at the future time des[1019]*1019ignated for delivery, but only a settlement of the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time fixed for delivery. From an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the referee and affirmed by the District Court was proper. The order is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. 1018, 149 C.C.A. 667, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balbach-v-surprise-ca7-1916.