Heidelberg Brewing Co. v. North American Service Co.

Sixth Circuit

Heidelberg Brewing Co. v. North American Service Co.

111 F.2d 897, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1940

DocketNo. 8260

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F.2d 897 (Heidelberg Brewing Co. v. North American Service 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

Heidelberg Brewing Co. v. North American Service Co., 111 F.2d 897, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804 (6th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a suit to cancel a contract for the rental of patented advertising signs with relief prayed for enlarged by supplemental petitions to include reformation of the contract because of mutual mistake of fact, the District Court dismissed the petition because clear and convincing evidence was lacking to establish the fact that the plain and unambiguous statement contained in the writing was due to mutual mistake of the parties or error of the draftsman, or that the broad guarantee claimed by the plaintiff was a part of the consideration for the instrument or was omitted therefrom by mutual mistake; and

Upon our examination of the pleadings and evidence in the case and the detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law announced by the District Judge, it is our view that the former are in accord with the evidence and that there is no error in the law applied; now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the judgment below, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 342, be and it is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a suit to cancel a contract for the rental of patented advertising signs with relief prayed for enlarged by supplemental petitions to include reformation of the contract because of mutual mistake of fact, the District Court dismissed the petition because clear and convincing evidence was lacking to establish the fact that the plain and unambiguous statement contained in the writing was due to mutual mistake of the parties or error of the draftsman, or that the broad guarantee claimed by the plaintiff was a part of the consideration for the instrument or was omitted therefrom by mutual mistake; and

Upon our examination of the pleadings and evidence in the case and the detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law announced by the District Judge, it is our view that the former are in accord with the evidence and that there is no error in the law applied; now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the judgment below, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 342, be and it is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F.2d 897, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heidelberg-brewing-co-v-north-american-service-co-ca6-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack