Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc

Third Circuit

Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc

192 F.2d 192

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided October 29, 1951·No. 10471·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

1

. 100 F.Supp. 967 (1951).

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

1

. 100 F.Supp. 967 (1951).

Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc, 192 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

192 F.2d 192 (Samuel Sandberg v. Ruddmelikian, Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related