Schlottmann v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.

178 F. 309, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5375

Opinion

LACOMBF, Circuit Judge.

This case seems to be clearly within the various decisions in the Hopedale and Storage Battery controversy. [310] Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 39 App. Div. 451, 57 N. Y. Supp. 422; Id., 96 App. Div. 344, 89 N. Y. Supp. 325; Id., 184 N. Y. 356, 77 N. E. 394. To recover damages for the breach there should be averments that plaintiff was damaged by defendant’s wrongful acts in depriving him of the opportunity to have a test made of the value of the property. In so deciding the court is not to be understood as expressing any opinion on the measure of damages, or as to what presumptions may or may not arise from a breach of this sort.

Demurrer sustained, with leave to amend complaint within 20 days.

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

Schlottmann v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co., 178 F. 309, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5375 (circtsdny 1910).

178 F. 309 (Schlottmann v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co.
77 N.E. 394 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co.
39 A.D. 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Hopedale Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co.
96 A.D. 344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)