Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc
This text of 192 F.2d 192 (Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc) 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal by the buyer of certain vending devices from the refusal of the trial court to award him the balance claimed to be due from a deposit made by him with the seller. The case was tried without a jury and the trial judge entered an opinion stating his reasons for denying the plaintiff recovery. 1 We agree with the trial judge and the reasons assigned by him. We, therefore, affirm upon the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The judgment will be affirmed.
. 100 F.Supp. 967 (1951).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
192 F.2d 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-sandberg-v-ruddmelikian-inc-ca3-1951.