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.
BIDDLE PURCHASING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. AMERICAN MILLS COMPANY, Defendant in Error, 1926 — 10 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
General
BIDDLE PURCHASING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. AMERICAN MILLS COMPANY, Defendant in Error
10 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
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
BIDDLE PURCHASING COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. AMERICAN MILLS COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 19, 1926.)
No. 159.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Writ of error to judgment entered in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Isham Henderson, of New York City (Charles R. Coulter, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
David L. Podell, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.