Hollweg v. Schaefer Brokerage Co.
Citations
- 197 F. 689
- 117 C.C.A. 83
- 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1315
Syllabus
<p>J. Frauds, Statute of (§ 159*) — Employment Contract — Term.</p> <p>Plaintiff alleged the making of a brokerage contract February 4, 1909, to sell glass jars in Toledo territory for tbe season of 1910, and then charged that this contract was modified and enlarged by agreement on October 1, 1909, whereby plaintiff was given the right to sell during the 1910 season not less than 250 cars in Ohio outside of certain cities and 50 cars in Detroit. It was admitted that the season did not regularly open, and was not expected to open until the latter part of 1909, and that it would continue until October, 1910. Plaintiff sold some of the jars, when defendant prevented him from performing the contract by selling his business to a competitor. Held, that the court properly charged that a valid contract would be established in case the jury found that what was said November 1, 1909, “when the limits of sale and territory in which the sales were to be made were defined, was said by the parties, speaking with the full recollection and understanding of all these previous negotiations and with the intention that those negotiations should enter into the agreement made that day as part of the contract then concluded,” and that the contract of employment was not void as a matter of law within the statute of frauds as an oral contract of employment for more than a year.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Frauds, Statute of, Gent. Dig. § 378; Dec. Dig. § 159.*]</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error (§ 231*) — Objections to Evidence — Ground of Objection.</p> <p>An objection to the admission of evidence cannot be reviewed, where it does not appear that the ground of objection was specified in the trial court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1299, 1352; Dec. Dig. § 231.*]</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error (§ 1053*) — Review—Evidence—Prejudice.</p> <p>Where in an action for breach of a brokerage contract to sell Owens process fruit jars the court submitted t
Judges: Denison, Knappen, Warrington
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp.Tenth Circuit· 1931-01-12· cited 47×
- Chicago Life Ins. v. TiernanEighth Circuit· 1920-01-05· cited 19×
- Garlock v. Motz Tire & Rubber Co.Michigan Supreme Court· 1916-09-26· cited 16×
- Baumer v. Franklin County Distilling Co.Sixth Circuit· 1943-04-15· cited 14×
- Powers v. Security Savings & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court· 1923-11-17· cited 10×
- Princess Amusement Co. v. WellsSixth Circuit· 1921-02-19· cited 10×
- Farmers' Fertilizer Co. v. LillieSixth Circuit· 1927-04-06· cited 7×
- E. H. Taylor, Jr., & Sons v. Julius Levin Co.Sixth Circuit· 1921-06-07· cited 7×
- Texas Co. v. Pensacola Maritime Corp.Fifth Circuit· 1923-07-11· cited 7×
- Cincinnati Underwriters Agency Co. v. Thomas J. Emery MemorialSixth Circuit· 1937-03-12· cited 6×
- Affiliated FM Insurance v. LTK Consulting Services, Inc.W.D. Washington· 2014-04-16· cited 4×
- In re Griffin Mfg. Co.N.D. Georgia· 1930-09-18· cited 2×
- Bishop v. WightEighth Circuit· 1915-02-17· cited 2×
- Kuykendall Real Estate Company, a Co-Partnership Composed of Russell Kuykendall and Robert Kuykendall of Enid, Oklahoma v. The United StatesCourt of Claims· 1968-10-18· cited 1×
- Baumer v. Franklin County Distilling Co.E.D. Kentucky· 1942-02-05· cited 1×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court· 1884-02-04· cited 399×
- Moore v. Security Trust & Life Ins.Eighth Circuit· 1909-03-23· cited 56×
- Wells v. National Life Ass'n of HartfordFifth Circuit· 1900-01-09· cited 31×
- Macgregor v. Union Life Ins.Eighth Circuit· 1903-02-16· cited 10×
- Booker v. HeffnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1904-07-01· cited 6×
- Lawyer v. PostNinth Circuit· 1901-05-06· cited 6×
- Imperial Life Ins. v. NewcombEighth Circuit· 1894-05-07· cited 5×
- Land Title & Trust Co. v. Asphalt Co. of AmericaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey· 1903-02-13· cited 4×
- Sheahan v. National S. S. Co.Second Circuit· 1898-03-10· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.