Casco Bank & Trust Company v. Harold H. Modes, Trustee, in the Matter of Marshall Engineering Co., Bankrupt

First Circuit

Casco Bank & Trust Company v. Harold H. Modes, Trustee, in the Matter of Marshall Engineering Co., Bankrupt

317 F.2d 924, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4936

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1963

Docket6102_1

StatusPublished

This text of 317 F.2d 924 (Casco Bank & Trust Company v. Harold H. Modes, Trustee, in the Matter of Marshall Engineering Co., Bankrupt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casco Bank & Trust Company v. Harold H. Modes, Trustee, in the Matter of Marshall Engineering Co., Bankrupt, 317 F.2d 924, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4936 (1st Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed on the basis-of the opinion of the District Court-Appellant’s only possible ground for distinguishing appellee’s case of Pinkham v. Commercial Acceptance Co., 1929, 128 Me. 139, 145 A. 900, is the court’s statement in that case that the agreement, there “related to the title to a very similar, but none the less a very different, automobile.” Inspection of the record in-the Pinkham case however, discloses that-there was no finding below that there-was in fact an actual car bearing this-other number. We must take the court’s statement as meaning that a creditor could well assume that there was such another car. The referee made the same finding in the case at bar.

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court. D.C. 213 F.Supp. 813.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed on the basis-of the opinion of the District Court-Appellant’s only possible ground for distinguishing appellee’s case of Pinkham v. Commercial Acceptance Co., 1929, 128 Me. 139, 145 A. 900, is the court’s statement in that case that the agreement, there “related to the title to a very similar, but none the less a very different, automobile.” Inspection of the record in-the Pinkham case however, discloses that-there was no finding below that there-was in fact an actual car bearing this-other number. We must take the court’s statement as meaning that a creditor could well assume that there was such another car. The referee made the same finding in the case at bar.

Judgment will be entered affirming the judgment of the District Court. D.C. 213 F.Supp. 813.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 924, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casco-bank-trust-company-v-harold-h-modes-trustee-in-the-matter-of-ca1-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack