Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pittsburg & W. Ry. Co.

Third Circuit

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pittsburg & W. Ry. Co.

105 F. 1003, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4064

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1900

DocketNo. 4

StatusPublished

This text of 105 F. 1003 (Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pittsburg & W. Ry. Co.) 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

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pittsburg & W. Ry. Co., 105 F. 1003, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4064 (3d Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

Careful consideration of this record and of the arguments of counsel leaves us in no doubt as to the correctness of that part of the decree of the circuit court which is here complained of. We think the opinion of the learned judge of that court sufficiently sustains his conclusion that the Pittsburg & Western Railway Company was under no contractual obligation to construct the track which is the subject of controversy. Consequently we need not decide whether or not, if such obligation had existed, there should, under the circumstances of this case, have been a decree for its specific performance; but, if the determination of that question had been necessary, it would have been entitled to serious attention. 2 Story, Eq. §§ 742, 767; 3 Pars. Cont. p. 357; Du Bois v. Baum, 46 Pa. St. 537. The decree is affirmed.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

Careful consideration of this record and of the arguments of counsel leaves us in no doubt as to the correctness of that part of the decree of the circuit court which is here complained of. We think the opinion of the learned judge of that court sufficiently sustains his conclusion that the Pittsburg & Western Railway Company was under no contractual obligation to construct the track which is the subject of controversy. Consequently we need not decide whether or not, if such obligation had existed, there should, under the circumstances of this case, have been a decree for its specific performance; but, if the determination of that question had been necessary, it would have been entitled to serious attention. 2 Story, Eq. §§ 742, 767; 3 Pars. Cont. p. 357; Du Bois v. Baum, 46 Pa. St. 537. The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 F. 1003, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercantile-trust-co-v-pittsburg-w-ry-co-ca3-1900.