T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Willie Wilson, and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner

Fifth Circuit

T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Willie Wilson, and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner

328 F.2d 313

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1964

Docket20837_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 328 F.2d 313 (T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Willie Wilson, and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Willie Wilson, and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, 328 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

*314 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment for plaintiff for the reasons for judgment set out in the district judge’s opinion. 1

Of the clear opinion that the district judge’s order should be affirmed, for the reasons that he gave, we approve his opinion and affirm his judgment. 2

Affirmed.

1

. Wilson v. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, etc., D.C., 218 F.Supp. 944.

2

. See 15 Am.Jur. 387, See. 2; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, p. 498, Sec. 326; Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 234 Ark. 339, 352 S.W.2d 75; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. De Bruin, 271 Wis. 412, 73 N.W.2d 479; Hagenah v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 241 Wis. 226, 5 N.W.2d 760, 142 A.L.R. 1417; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. et al. v. City of Marshall, 136 U.S. 393, 10 S.Ct. 846, 34 L.Ed. 385; Miller v. Weller, 3 Cir., 288 F.2d 438; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632; Paterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 196 F.2d 947.

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

*314 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment for plaintiff for the reasons for judgment set out in the district judge’s opinion. 1

Of the clear opinion that the district judge’s order should be affirmed, for the reasons that he gave, we approve his opinion and affirm his judgment. 2

Affirmed.

1

. Wilson v. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, etc., D.C., 218 F.Supp. 944.

2

. See 15 Am.Jur. 387, See. 2; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, p. 498, Sec. 326; Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 234 Ark. 339, 352 S.W.2d 75; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. De Bruin, 271 Wis. 412, 73 N.W.2d 479; Hagenah v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 241 Wis. 226, 5 N.W.2d 760, 142 A.L.R. 1417; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. et al. v. City of Marshall, 136 U.S. 393, 10 S.Ct. 846, 34 L.Ed. 385; Miller v. Weller, 3 Cir., 288 F.2d 438; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632; Paterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 196 F.2d 947.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-smith-son-inc-v-willie-wilson-and-p-j-donovan-deputy-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack