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.
BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc., 1932 — 61 F.2d 519 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc.
61 F.2d 519·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
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
BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc.
No. 4880.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,
Sept. 23, 1932.
H. Eugene Heine and Henry L. Shepaxd, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
A. J. Creskoff and D. Hays Solis-Cohen, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael Eddman, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for ap-pellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This is another of the constantly recurring questions of whether machinery, etc., in the possession of a bankrupt was held by bailment or conditional sale. Necessarily each case turns on its particular facts and the instrument under which 'it is held and whether they constituted a bailment or a conditional sale.
Tho facts and a discussion of the, writing here involved are fully set forth in the opinion of the referee (1 F. Supp. 531), and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. The referee therein held there was no bailment. On certificate, the court below adopted tbe referee’s view. After due consideration had, we come to the same conclusion, and therefore limit ourselves to affirming the court’s decree.