Louis Croci and H. Phillip Nesbitt T/a Uniceiver, a Joint Venture v. The City Bank and Trust Company

Fourth Circuit

Louis Croci and H. Phillip Nesbitt T/a Uniceiver, a Joint Venture v. The City Bank and Trust Company

431 F.2d 695

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 1970

Docket14422

StatusPublished

This text of 431 F.2d 695 (Louis Croci and H. Phillip Nesbitt T/a Uniceiver, a Joint Venture v. The City Bank and Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis Croci and H. Phillip Nesbitt T/a Uniceiver, a Joint Venture v. The City Bank and Trust Company, 431 F.2d 695 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the record, briefs and appendix filed in this case, it appears to the court that the appellant is in breach of an oral contract to extend a line of credit to the appellee. After jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, appellee was awarded damages of $46,917.

There is no basis in law for appellant’s assignment of errors. Substantial performance of the terms of the agreement by the parties, and appellee’s reliance thereon, preclude the defense based on the Statute of Frauds. Damages were properly calculated to recompense appellee for reasonable foreseeable losses. Finally, the issue of representation of authority to extend the line of credit by the bank president was properly left to the jury. The jury verdict in favor of the appellee is amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the record, briefs and appendix filed in this case, it appears to the court that the appellant is in breach of an oral contract to extend a line of credit to the appellee. After jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, appellee was awarded damages of $46,917.

There is no basis in law for appellant’s assignment of errors. Substantial performance of the terms of the agreement by the parties, and appellee’s reliance thereon, preclude the defense based on the Statute of Frauds. Damages were properly calculated to recompense appellee for reasonable foreseeable losses. Finally, the issue of representation of authority to extend the line of credit by the bank president was properly left to the jury. The jury verdict in favor of the appellee is amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-croci-and-h-phillip-nesbitt-ta-uniceiver-a-joint-venture-v-the-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack