Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co.
This text of 184 F. 991 (Wefel v. D. C. Bacon Co.) 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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
184 F. 991, 106 C.C.A. 668, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wefel-v-d-c-bacon-co-ca5-1911.