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.
Hal THOMPSON, as Receiver, and John B. Wheat, as Trustee, Appellants, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellee, 1930 — 38 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hal THOMPSON, as Receiver, and John B. Wheat, as Trustee, Appellants, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellee
38 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1930
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
Hal THOMPSON, as Receiver, and John B. Wheat, as Trustee, Appellants, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 5763.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth. Circuit.
March 15, 1930.
Daniel MaeDougald, of Atlanta, Ga., John C. Cooper, Jr., of Jacksonville, Fla., and Chas. J. Morrow, of Tampa, Fla. (Spalding, MaeDougald & Sibley, of Atlanta, Ga., and Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne, of Jacksonville, Fla., on the brief), for appellants.
Martin H. Long, of Jacksonville, Fla., and James P. Carey, Jr., of Chicago, 111. (Edwin W. Sims and Sims, Godman &' Stransky, all of Chicago, 111., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and SIBLEY, District Judge.,
Certiorari denied 50 S. Ct. 410, 74 L. Ed. —.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This appeal complains of an order authorizing the Otis Elevator Company to remove from the Floridan Hotel at Tampa, Fla., elevators which it had installed therein under a title retention contract, unless the balance of .the purchase price with interest be paid within thirty days.
On a former appeal, all the questions now involved were presented and decided except the single one whether the elevators could be removed without substantial damage to the building. Wheat v. Otis Elevator Co. (C. C. A.) 23 F.(2d) 152. It has now been found as a fact by the District Judge on uneontroverted evidence that no substantial injury to the building will result from the removal of the elevators.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.