Spilka v. Michigan National Bank

Sixth Circuit

Spilka v. Michigan National Bank

64 Ohio Law. Abs. 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1953

DocketNo. 11662

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 224 (Spilka v. Michigan National Bank) 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

Spilka v. Michigan National Bank, 64 Ohio Law. Abs. 224 (6th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co v Tomkins, 304 U. S. 64; In re Avery, 114 Fed (2) 768, 770, C. A. 6th; In re Zaeppel & Russell, Inc., 49 Fed. Supp. 709, 710, affirmed 135 Fed. (2) 215, C. A. 6th; Leddy v. Cornell. 52 Col. 189, 120 Pac. 153; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N. W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S. W. (2d) 130;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is not erroneous;

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:

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

This appeal having been heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties,

And the Court being of the view that the opinion of the Attorney General of Ohio construing the statute herein involved, is not controlling in the decision of this case within the meaning of the rule announced in Erie Railroad Co v Tomkins, 304 U. S. 64; In re Avery, 114 Fed (2) 768, 770, C. A. 6th; In re Zaeppel & Russell, Inc., 49 Fed. Supp. 709, 710, affirmed 135 Fed. (2) 215, C. A. 6th; Leddy v. Cornell. 52 Col. 189, 120 Pac. 153; Follmer v. State, 94 Neb. 217, 142 N. W. 908; Jones v. Williams, 121 Tex. 94, 45 S. W. (2d) 130;

And that the construction and application of the statute to the facts of this case, as made by the District Judge, is not erroneous;

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Judge.

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ohio Law. Abs. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spilka-v-michigan-national-bank-ca6-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack