Pennsylvania R. v. National Textile & Mfg. Co.

Second Circuit

Pennsylvania R. v. National Textile & Mfg. Co.

213 F.2d 466

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1954

DocketNo. 119, Docket 22807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 F.2d 466 (Pennsylvania R. v. National Textile & Mfg. 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

Pennsylvania R. v. National Textile & Mfg. Co., 213 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We see no merit in this appeal. The evidence amply supports the verdict. The pre-trial stipulation and the testimony of defendant’s president fully answer defendant’s argument that defendant did not authorize the army officers to act as defendant’s agents in shipping the goods to defendant at its New York address. Moreover, the letter from defendant’s lawyer to plaintiff shows that defendant did not refuse to pay the demanded charges on the ground that the shipments were not authorized by defendant but solely because of the asserted error in the classification. As defendant made no effort to prove the con[468]*468tents of the sales contract, it is in no position to assert that the contract obligated the army to pay the freight charges; nor did defendant’s president, in his testimony, so much as whisper that the contract so provided.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We see no merit in this appeal. The evidence amply supports the verdict. The pre-trial stipulation and the testimony of defendant’s president fully answer defendant’s argument that defendant did not authorize the army officers to act as defendant’s agents in shipping the goods to defendant at its New York address. Moreover, the letter from defendant’s lawyer to plaintiff shows that defendant did not refuse to pay the demanded charges on the ground that the shipments were not authorized by defendant but solely because of the asserted error in the classification. As defendant made no effort to prove the con[468]*468tents of the sales contract, it is in no position to assert that the contract obligated the army to pay the freight charges; nor did defendant’s president, in his testimony, so much as whisper that the contract so provided.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-r-v-national-textile-mfg-co-ca2-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack