Rivercity v. American Can Company
RIVERCITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN CAN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
* At oral argument, counsel for appellant Rivercity stated (correctly, we believe) that its case depended upon' whether the letter dated September 8, 1971, from Whitney National Bank of New Orleans to Rivercity created a guaranty by Whitney of the obligations of Jackson Brewing Company under Jackson’s option agreement with Riv-ercity. We reject that construction of the September letter; that letter states only that the rights of Rivercity under the option agreement will prime the rights of Whitney under the Act of Collateral Mortgage and related note and the Act of Subordination referred to in the letter. That is a far cry from the guaranty by Whitney of Jackson’s obligations under the option agreement needed for Rivercity to prevail here. Since Whitney did not guarantee those obligations, under no theory could American Can Company have done so.
AFFIRMED.
* After this opinion was released in unpublished form, the Court was advised that the District Court’s opinion in this case will be published. 600 F.Supp. 908 . This opinion is being published so that the public record will be complete.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(substantial evidence required to show ratification)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.