Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
J. P. TACKETT, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellant, v. Hiram HARRIS et al., Appellees, 1931 — 50 F.2d 1084 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
J. P. TACKETT, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellant, v. Hiram HARRIS et al., Appellees
50 F.2d 1084·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
J. P. TACKETT, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellant, v. Hiram HARRIS et al., Appellees.
No. 5455.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 30, 1931.
Stanley Reed, of Ashland, Ky. (Browning & Reed, of Ashland, Ky., and J. B. Clarke, of Prestonsburg, Ky., on the brief), for appellant.
A. J. May, of Prestonsburg, Ky., for ap-pellee Weddington.
C. B. Wheeler and J. C. Hopkins, both of Prestonsburg, Ky., for appellee Hiram' Harris.
Before DENISON and HICKS, Circuit-Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case turns upon the question of fact whether certain notes signed by the directors of the corporation were, as between the parties, so intended to be and so treated as the indebtedness of the corporation that, when the then solvent corporation paid them out of its surplus profits, there was no implied contract on the part of the signers to repay these amounts to the corporation. The majority of the court concludes that no such implied contract arose. No object is seen in recording the exhaustive discussion and analysis of the proofs which have been necessary to reach this conclusion.
This result applies to the first two notes. The remaining three notes were paid under different conditions; but the directors have contributed and advanced more than enough to meet their liability on these later notes, if liability there was.
Accordingly, the decree of the District Court is affirmed.