David Davies, Inc. v. Potomac Fish & Oyster Co.

Sixth Circuit

David Davies, Inc. v. Potomac Fish & Oyster Co.

207 F.2d 597, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 1953

Docket11754_1

StatusPublished

This text of 207 F.2d 597 (David Davies, Inc. v. Potomac Fish & Oyster Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Davies, Inc. v. Potomac Fish & Oyster Co., 207 F.2d 597, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been heard and considered on the oral arguments and briefs *598 of attorneys and on the record in the case;

From which it appears, upon the basis of the district court’s findings, resting on substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, that the appellant failed to examine the oysters involved as the subject matter of the litigation within a reasonable time after their receipt, nearly three weeks having elapsed before anything definite was done by the defendant ; and that, inasmuch as the burden rested upon the appellant to prove that the oysters were in a dirty or spoiled condition when received and that the only real testimony concerning this was that of the witness Leonard who testified that the color of the water in which the oysters were lying was caused by decomposition and not by dirt, the oysters were not diligently tested while in possession of the appellant;

And in view of the other testimony reviewed in the order of the district court overruling the motion.for a new trial;

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been heard and considered on the oral arguments and briefs *598 of attorneys and on the record in the case;

From which it appears, upon the basis of the district court’s findings, resting on substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, that the appellant failed to examine the oysters involved as the subject matter of the litigation within a reasonable time after their receipt, nearly three weeks having elapsed before anything definite was done by the defendant ; and that, inasmuch as the burden rested upon the appellant to prove that the oysters were in a dirty or spoiled condition when received and that the only real testimony concerning this was that of the witness Leonard who testified that the color of the water in which the oysters were lying was caused by decomposition and not by dirt, the oysters were not diligently tested while in possession of the appellant;

And in view of the other testimony reviewed in the order of the district court overruling the motion.for a new trial;

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F.2d 597, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-davies-inc-v-potomac-fish-oyster-co-ca6-1953.