In re McCarthy Portable Elevator Co.

Third Circuit

In re McCarthy Portable Elevator Co.

201 F. 923, 120 C.C.A. 261, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1913

DocketNo. 1,688

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 F. 923 (In re McCarthy Portable Elevator Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re McCarthy Portable Elevator Co., 201 F. 923, 120 C.C.A. 261, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949 (3d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We approve the order appealed from, without committing ourselves to all the reasons given by the learned judge to support it. It is enough to say, we think, that Keeney, who was the assignee of McCarthy’s claim for services as an officer of the .company, could only recover on McCarthy’s right, and that this right did not have the proper legal support. McCarthy certainly would have had no standing under the void resolution of September 28, 1905; and, if we assume (without deciding) that he might have had some standing upon a quantum meruit, the testimony concerning the value of his services is not satisfactory. Upon this point the referee and the district judge disagreed, and we incline to take the judge’s view.

The value of the services being thus uncertain, it follows that the order appealed from should be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We approve the order appealed from, without committing ourselves to all the reasons given by the learned judge to support it. It is enough to say, we think, that Keeney, who was the assignee of McCarthy’s claim for services as an officer of the .company, could only recover on McCarthy’s right, and that this right did not have the proper legal support. McCarthy certainly would have had no standing under the void resolution of September 28, 1905; and, if we assume (without deciding) that he might have had some standing upon a quantum meruit, the testimony concerning the value of his services is not satisfactory. Upon this point the referee and the district judge disagreed, and we incline to take the judge’s view.

The value of the services being thus uncertain, it follows that the order appealed from should be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F. 923, 120 C.C.A. 261, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mccarthy-portable-elevator-co-ca3-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack