James E. Ware & Son v. Griffin

215 F. 85, 131 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1224
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 31, 1914
DocketNo. 67
StatusPublished

This text of 215 F. 85 (James E. Ware & Son v. Griffin) 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
James E. Ware & Son v. Griffin, 215 F. 85, 131 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1224 (3d Cir. 1914).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In the bankruptcy in the court below of Halstead & Co., a corporation, Ware & Son, the appellants, presented a claim, inter alia, for services as architect, rendered to Halstead & Co., a partnership. This claim they averred had been assumed by the bankrupt in a written contract between the corporation and the partnership. The referee allowed the part of the claim here in controversy, but his action was reversed by the court below. From a decree so holding Ware & Son appealed to this court. The opinion of the lower court is reported at 204 Fed. 115, by reference to which a restatement of the facts is avoided. After argument and due consideration this court agrees with the court below that by the writing in question the bankrupt did not assume the rejected claim.

As no principle or precedent is involved, simply the construction of a writing, we limit ourselves to announcing such conclusion and affirming the order of the lower court.

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

Related

Hasbrouck v. Winkler
6 A. 22 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1886)
In re Halstead & Co.
204 F. 115 (D. New Jersey, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 F. 85, 131 C.C.A. 393, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-ware-son-v-griffin-ca3-1914.