Mosley v. Snider

Sixth Circuit

Mosley v. Snider

160 F.2d 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1947

DocketNo. 10369

StatusPublished

This text of 160 F.2d 105 (Mosley v. Snider) 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

Mosley v. Snider, 160 F.2d 105 (6th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been considered by the Court on the record, briefs, and oral arguments of attorneys for the respective parties, and

It appearing that the verdict of the jury to the effect that the appellant Ray Kelly was the agent or ostensible agent of the co-appellants John Edwin Mosley and James Harold Mosley, and that the sale by him of the automobile in question was in excess of the OPA ceiling price as alleged by the appellee, is supported by substantial evidence, and

It further appearing that the rulings and conclusions of law of the District Judge are not erroneous as a matter of law; see United States v. Arrow Packing Corp., 2 Cir., 153 Fed.2d 669; Middleton v. Francis, 257 Ky. 42, 77 S.W.2d 425; American Nat. Red Cross v. Brandeis Machinery & Supply Co., 286 Ky. 665, 151 S.W.2d 445; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 486, 14 L.Ed. 502; Kentucky Macaroni Co. v. London & Provincial Marine & General Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 83 F.2d 126, 129; Secs. 27 and 231 Restatement of the Law, Agency.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal having been considered by the Court on the record, briefs, and oral arguments of attorneys for the respective parties, and

It appearing that the verdict of the jury to the effect that the appellant Ray Kelly was the agent or ostensible agent of the co-appellants John Edwin Mosley and James Harold Mosley, and that the sale by him of the automobile in question was in excess of the OPA ceiling price as alleged by the appellee, is supported by substantial evidence, and

It further appearing that the rulings and conclusions of law of the District Judge are not erroneous as a matter of law; see United States v. Arrow Packing Corp., 2 Cir., 153 Fed.2d 669; Middleton v. Francis, 257 Ky. 42, 77 S.W.2d 425; American Nat. Red Cross v. Brandeis Machinery & Supply Co., 286 Ky. 665, 151 S.W.2d 445; Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 486, 14 L.Ed. 502; Kentucky Macaroni Co. v. London & Provincial Marine & General Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 83 F.2d 126, 129; Secs. 27 and 231 Restatement of the Law, Agency.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F.2d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-snider-ca6-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack