In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank

Sixth Circuit

In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank

202 F.2d 426, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 105

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided February 19, 1953·No. 11662·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188; In re Avery, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 768, 770; In re Zaepfel & Russell, Inc., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 709, 710, affirmed Farmer’s State Bank v. Jones, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 215; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 120 P. 153, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 918; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N.W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 79 A.L.R. 983;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is, not erroneous;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188; In re Avery, 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 768, 770; In re Zaepfel & Russell, Inc., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 709, 710, affirmed Farmer’s State Bank v. Jones, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 215; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 120 P. 153, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 918; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N.W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S.W.2d 130, 79 A.L.R. 983;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is, not erroneous;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank, 202 F.2d 426, 67 Ohio Law. Abs. 105 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

202 F.2d 426 (In Re Mitchell. Spilka v. Michigan Nat. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related