Grant v. Kellogg Co.

Second Circuit

Grant v. Kellogg Co.

154 F.2d 59, 75 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 301, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3109

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 4, 1946·No. 207·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The evidence amply supports Judge Bright’s findings that (1) the original oral agreement was to endure for a year, (2) there was no reservation of title, either express or implied in fact, and (3) plain *60 tiff’s letter of December 16, 1938, constituted a valid release. We see no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. Because of the findings, we do not reach the issue of the extent of the copying. Plaintiff’s elfish imagination seems to have given him a mistaken notion of his rights.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The evidence amply supports Judge Bright’s findings that (1) the original oral agreement was to endure for a year, (2) there was no reservation of title, either express or implied in fact, and (3) plain *60 tiff’s letter of December 16, 1938, constituted a valid release. We see no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence. Because of the findings, we do not reach the issue of the extent of the copying. Plaintiff’s elfish imagination seems to have given him a mistaken notion of his rights.

Affirmed.

Grant v. Kellogg Co., 154 F.2d 59, 75 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 301, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3109 (2d Cir. 1946).

Pincite

154 F.2d 59 (Grant v. Kellogg Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related