M. Gould Beard v. Norman A. Pierson

Tenth Circuit

M. Gould Beard v. Norman A. Pierson

418 F.2d 785, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10060

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1969

Docket87-68

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 785 (M. Gould Beard v. Norman A. Pierson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M. Gould Beard v. Norman A. Pierson, 418 F.2d 785, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10060 (10th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal taken from a judgment for the sum of $58,000 entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in favor of appellee after trial to the court. The judgment is premised on findings and conclusions determining that appellee was entitled to and did rescind certain contracts with appellant and was thus entitled to recover back monies paid to appellant. Our review of the record shows more than ample support for each of the trial court’s findings, no error in law in the court’s conclusions, and we affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum decision. 305 F.Supp. 134, D.C. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the correctness of the judgment below is not premised nor dependent on a finding or conclusion that the subject agreements were or were not severable. The liability of appellant would follow in either instance.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal taken from a judgment for the sum of $58,000 entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in favor of appellee after trial to the court. The judgment is premised on findings and conclusions determining that appellee was entitled to and did rescind certain contracts with appellant and was thus entitled to recover back monies paid to appellant. Our review of the record shows more than ample support for each of the trial court’s findings, no error in law in the court’s conclusions, and we affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum decision. 305 F.Supp. 134, D.C. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the correctness of the judgment below is not premised nor dependent on a finding or conclusion that the subject agreements were or were not severable. The liability of appellant would follow in either instance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F.2d 785, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-gould-beard-v-norman-a-pierson-ca10-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack