Lester W. Tucker, Jr. v. Daniel L. Firestone, James A. St. John v. Daniel L. Firestone

Sixth Circuit

Lester W. Tucker, Jr. v. Daniel L. Firestone, James A. St. John v. Daniel L. Firestone

625 F.2d 124, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 1980

Docket78-3364, 78-3579

StatusPublished

This text of 625 F.2d 124 (Lester W. Tucker, Jr. v. Daniel L. Firestone, James A. St. John v. Daniel L. Firestone) 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

Lester W. Tucker, Jr. v. Daniel L. Firestone, James A. St. John v. Daniel L. Firestone, 625 F.2d 124, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15953 (6th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These two appeals are taken from District Judge Robert Duncan’s dismissal of their claims against Eastman Kodak Company. These claims arise from money which plaintiffs Tucker and St. John at different times paid to one, Daniel L. Firestone, under contract by which Firestone was to furnish them Kodak films, supplies and sales materials. Plaintiffs admit that Firestone never said he was an agent for Kodak in plaintiffs’ transactions with him and that the contracts contained no references to Kodak except to the extent of describing the materials to be furnished.

These two suits were continued against Kodak after both plaintiffs had settled their fraud claims against Daniel L. Firestone. In a thorough review of the undisputed facts disclosed by the depositions and exhibits, Judge Duncan granted summary judgment holding that “Kodak had engaged in no act which would allow a reasonably prudent man to conclude that Firestone had the authority to act on behalf of Kodak. Moreover, neither is Kodak estopped from denying any allegation of Firestone’s agency.” He also held that the record discloses that Kodak had exercised “due diligence” in relation to making it known that Firestone was not a Kodak agent.

For these reasons and others set forth in the opinion and orders of District Judge Robert Duncan filed October 27,1977 in the Tucker case and November 21, 1977, and September 14,1978 in the St. John case, the summary judgments in both cases are hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These two appeals are taken from District Judge Robert Duncan’s dismissal of their claims against Eastman Kodak Company. These claims arise from money which plaintiffs Tucker and St. John at different times paid to one, Daniel L. Firestone, under contract by which Firestone was to furnish them Kodak films, supplies and sales materials. Plaintiffs admit that Firestone never said he was an agent for Kodak in plaintiffs’ transactions with him and that the contracts contained no references to Kodak except to the extent of describing the materials to be furnished.

These two suits were continued against Kodak after both plaintiffs had settled their fraud claims against Daniel L. Firestone. In a thorough review of the undisputed facts disclosed by the depositions and exhibits, Judge Duncan granted summary judgment holding that “Kodak had engaged in no act which would allow a reasonably prudent man to conclude that Firestone had the authority to act on behalf of Kodak. Moreover, neither is Kodak estopped from denying any allegation of Firestone’s agency.” He also held that the record discloses that Kodak had exercised “due diligence” in relation to making it known that Firestone was not a Kodak agent.

For these reasons and others set forth in the opinion and orders of District Judge Robert Duncan filed October 27,1977 in the Tucker case and November 21, 1977, and September 14,1978 in the St. John case, the summary judgments in both cases are hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 F.2d 124, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 15953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-w-tucker-jr-v-daniel-l-firestone-james-a-st-john-v-daniel-ca6-1980.