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.
KEYSTONE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. SMITH, Surviving Partner H. J. Baker & Bro. et al., Defendants in Error, 1929 — 32 F.2d 264 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
KEYSTONE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. SMITH, Surviving Partner H. J. Baker & Bro. et al., Defendants in Error
32 F.2d 264·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
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
KEYSTONE WOOD PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. SMITH, Surviving Partner H. J. Baker & Bro. et al., Defendants in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 7, 1929.
Rehearing Denied April 8, 1929.
No. 3783.
John B. Brooks, of Erie, Pa., John. E. Mullin, of Kane, Pa., and Allen J. Hastings and Frederick W. Kruse, both of Olean, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
W. P. Gifford, of Erie, Pa., Edwards, O’Loughlin & George, of New York City, and Gunnison, Fish, Gifford & Chapin, of Erie, Pa., for defendants in error.
Before WOOLLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment of $87,003 against the defendant below as damages for tbe breach of a contract to install a process for extracting acetic acid from the distillate of wood.
The principal issue of fact, as to which the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant was flatly contradictory, was properly submitted to the jury. Its verdict for the plaintiff disposed of the ease, unless the learned trial judge committed error.
After a careful examination of the assignments, we do not think error was committed, and we affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in the opinion refusing a new trial. 32 F. (2d) 261.