T. SMITH & SON, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE WILSON, AND P. J. DONOVAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, APPELLEES
[*314] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment for plaintiff for the reasons for judgment set out in the district judge’s opinion.1
Of the clear opinion that the district judge’s order should be affirmed, for the reasons that he gave, we approve his opinion and affirm his judgment.2
Affirmed.
. Wilson v. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, etc., D.C., 218 F.Supp. 944.
. See 15 Am.Jur. 387, See. 2; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, p. 498, Sec. 326; Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 234 Ark. 339, 352 S.W. 2d 75; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. De Bruin, 271 Wis. 412, 73 N.W. 2d 479; Hagenah v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 241 Wis. 226, 5 N.W. 2d 760, 142 A.L.R. 1417; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. et al. v. City of Marshall, 136 U.S. 393, 10 S.Ct. 846, 34 L.Ed. 385; Miller v. Weller, 3 Cir., 288 F. 2d 438; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 17 S.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632; Paterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 196 F. 2d 947.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Brands Co. v. Thad Melson, 594 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Ingalls Shipbuilding Division v. Hollinhead, 571 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1897)
- Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 136 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1890)
- Patterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., 196 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1952)
- Miller v. Weller, 288 F.2d 438 (3d Cir. 1961)