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.
STRONGHART COMPANY v. BANKERS' THRIFT CORPORATION; STRONGHART COMPANY v. AMERICAN BADGE COMPANY, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1041 · caselaw · US
Corporations
STRONGHART COMPANY v. BANKERS' THRIFT CORPORATION; STRONGHART COMPANY v. AMERICAN BADGE COMPANY
61 F.2d 1041·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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
STRONGHART COMPANY v. BANKERS’ THRIFT CORPORATION. STRONGHART COMPANY v. AMERICAN BADGE COMPANY.
No. 4097.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Nov. 16, 1932.
Miller Belfield, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Max W. Zabel, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER and EVANS, Circuit Judges, and WILKERSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On motion of counsel for appellant, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is- hereby, dismissed, with costs.