Morris v. Chesapeake & O. S. S. Co.

Second Circuit

Morris v. Chesapeake & O. S. S. Co.

148 F. 11, 78 C.C.A. 179, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1906

DocketNo. 258

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 F. 11 (Morris v. Chesapeake & O. S. S. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Chesapeake & O. S. S. Co., 148 F. 11, 78 C.C.A. 179, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

We are satisfied that this is an entire contract, not seven separate contracts, and therefore not within the exception which admits parol evidence to show that a written contract is not a contract at all, because it never went into effect; some unexpressed condition precedent not being fulfilled.

The decree is affirmed, with interest, but without costs, upon the opinion of the district judge and the report of the commissioner.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

We are satisfied that this is an entire contract, not seven separate contracts, and therefore not within the exception which admits parol evidence to show that a written contract is not a contract at all, because it never went into effect; some unexpressed condition precedent not being fulfilled.

The decree is affirmed, with interest, but without costs, upon the opinion of the district judge and the report of the commissioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F. 11, 78 C.C.A. 179, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-chesapeake-o-s-s-co-ca2-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack