Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co.

Fifth Circuit

Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co.

184 F. 991, 106 C.C.A. 668, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 7, 1911·No. No. 2,120·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the exceptions taken, no one of the five counts in the amended declaration was sufficient to require the defendant to answer. The third count comes nearest to being sufficient, but that is defective, in that the averment that the purchaser found by the plaintiff “who was ready, able, and willing to buy said property’’ was qualified by the statement, “if the same was as defendant represented it to be,” and, further, in not averring that the procured purchaser was tendered to the defendant before the sale was made to another party. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Under the exceptions taken, no one of the five counts in the amended declaration was sufficient to require the defendant to answer. The third count comes nearest to being sufficient, but that is defective, in that the averment that the purchaser found by the plaintiff “who was ready, able, and willing to buy said property’’ was qualified by the statement, “if the same was as defendant represented it to be,” and, further, in not averring that the procured purchaser was tendered to the defendant before the sale was made to another party. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co., 184 F. 991, 106 C.C.A. 668, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950 (5th Cir. 1911).

Pincite

184 F. 991 (Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.