1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 173 F.2d
  5. 173 F.2d 911 (1949)
 

DANIELS v. GOLDBERG

No. 21251.

173 F.2d 911 (1949)

DANIELS v. GOLDBERG.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

April 5, 1949.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Schlesinger & Krinsky, of New York City (Robert E. Tinsley, of Malverne, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, of New York City (Morton L. Deitch and Martin D. Eile, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. Defendant (relying on his exception to the charge and on the denials of his requests to charge) contends that the judge erred in telling the jury that it must decide for plaintiff unless "there was a full and complete agreement." Defendant thus asserts that the jury should have been told that defendant must win if the jury found an understanding that the notes were to be replaced by five-year notes if defendant bought the factory.

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases