TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Columbus Wood Preserving Co. v. United States

Columbus Wood Preserving Co. v. United States, 209 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 11, 1953
Docket
No. 11790
Judges
Allen, Martin, Mc-ALLISTER, Per Curiam
Citations
209 F.2d 1531953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3143

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The government brought suit for a claimed balance due to the War Assets Administration on the sale to appellants of certain creosoted piling and introduced in evidence a certified copy of the account which, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1733 , constituted proof of the amount due. Appellants, in their answer, denied that they owed the amount claimed; contended that the piling was not as represented by the government, but was deteriorated and unfit for use, and that the government was, therefore, guilty of breach of warranty. Appellants further filed a cross complaint asking damages for the claimed misrepresentation and breach of warranty. The district court entered a judgment in favor of the government in the amount claimed of $6,-583.01, less a deduction of $253.30 for a shortage in the piling delivered to appellants.

Both parties refer throughout their briefs to testimony and exhibits which were not included in their appendices, in violation of the provisions of Sections 2(e) and 4(e) of Rule 21 of this court, and which has necessitated a review of the original papers and the transcript of testimony filed in this court as the record on appeal. One of the principal purposes of the above-mentioned rule is to present in brief printed form *154 in the appendices those parts of the record material to the questions presented and which it is essential for the judges of the court to read in order to decide those questions, and observance of this rule by counsel is required.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the párties and find that no error appears in the conduct and determination of the case by the district court, and that the judgment is sustained by substantial evidence.

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be and is hereby affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 12020: 219782026peak 2020 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Kenneth B. Kush579 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 1978)
  2. In re Bruce J. PaswallNo. 7:20-cv-05624 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020)
  3. Betteroads Asphalt, LLC v. Banco Popular de Puerto RicoNo. 3:19-cv-02019 (D.P.R. May 20, 2020)

Most recent

  1. In re Bruce J. PaswallNo. 7:20-cv-05624 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020)
  2. Betteroads Asphalt, LLC v. Banco Popular de Puerto RicoNo. 3:19-cv-02019 (D.P.R. May 20, 2020)
  3. United States v. Kenneth B. Kush579 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list