Hubert v. Apostoloff

Second Circuit

Hubert v. Apostoloff

285 F. 161, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1944

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1922

DocketNos. 76, 127, 128

StatusPublished

This text of 285 F. 161 (Hubert v. Apostoloff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hubert v. Apostoloff, 285 F. 161, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1944 (2d Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant asserted to the appellee Hubert that certain batteries exhibited by him and perfectly efficient when exhibited had been made in accordance with appellant’s method long before the period of exhibition, in some instances as much as two years. It was asserted that battery efficiency had been maintained during these long periods because of the excellence of appellant’s method of construction.

This was an absolute falsehood, fully proven, if not in effect admitted, and out of this false representation and reliance thereon all the matters complained of by Hubert and his associates directly grew. Nothing in this bulky record enables Apostoloff to escape from the equitable and legal consequences of this fundamental fraud.

Decrees affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant asserted to the appellee Hubert that certain batteries exhibited by him and perfectly efficient when exhibited had been made in accordance with appellant’s method long before the period of exhibition, in some instances as much as two years. It was asserted that battery efficiency had been maintained during these long periods because of the excellence of appellant’s method of construction.

This was an absolute falsehood, fully proven, if not in effect admitted, and out of this false representation and reliance thereon all the matters complained of by Hubert and his associates directly grew. Nothing in this bulky record enables Apostoloff to escape from the equitable and legal consequences of this fundamental fraud.

Decrees affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 F. 161, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-v-apostoloff-ca2-1922.