Goldberger v. Goldman

Sixth Circuit

Goldberger v. Goldman

226 F. 447, 141 C.C.A. 277, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1915

DocketNo. 2699

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F. 447 (Goldberger v. Goldman) 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

Goldberger v. Goldman, 226 F. 447, 141 C.C.A. 277, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (6th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and defendant indorsed a note for a corporation in which both were stockholders. Plaintiff sued to recover the amount-which he was compelled to pay by reason of his indorsement under the claim that defendant had agreed, as between himself and plaintiff, to pay the note. Upon the first trial, verdict was instructed for defendant. This court reversed the judgment. Goldman v. Goldberger, 208 Fed. 877, 126 C. C. A. 35. On the second trial, the sole ultimate question 'was one of fact, viz., whether the defendant made the alleged agreement to pay the note. Defendant takes no exceptions to the charge, which was fully as favorable to him as he was entitled to. The principal complaints relate to the admission of certain items of testimony and refusal of requests to charge. There was ample evidence tending to support the verdict, and tending to show that it was defendant’s duty, as between himself and plaintiff, to pay the note. It was proper to show the existence .of this alleged duty and the naturalness and equitableness of his alleged agreement, as bearing upon the probability that it was made. The evidence objected to bore, for the most part, upon the relations between the parties. The requests involved were properly refused, the case has been fairly tried, and we find no error in the record.

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and defendant indorsed a note for a corporation in which both were stockholders. Plaintiff sued to recover the amount-which he was compelled to pay by reason of his indorsement under the claim that defendant had agreed, as between himself and plaintiff, to pay the note. Upon the first trial, verdict was instructed for defendant. This court reversed the judgment. Goldman v. Goldberger, 208 Fed. 877, 126 C. C. A. 35. On the second trial, the sole ultimate question 'was one of fact, viz., whether the defendant made the alleged agreement to pay the note. Defendant takes no exceptions to the charge, which was fully as favorable to him as he was entitled to. The principal complaints relate to the admission of certain items of testimony and refusal of requests to charge. There was ample evidence tending to support the verdict, and tending to show that it was defendant’s duty, as between himself and plaintiff, to pay the note. It was proper to show the existence .of this alleged duty and the naturalness and equitableness of his alleged agreement, as bearing upon the probability that it was made. The evidence objected to bore, for the most part, upon the relations between the parties. The requests involved were properly refused, the case has been fairly tried, and we find no error in the record.

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F. 447, 141 C.C.A. 277, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberger-v-goldman-ca6-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack