HOWARD ET AL.

v.

RANDALL & MCALLISTER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Craig v. United States, 81 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1936)
  …xistence of the conspiracy, but simply indicates that the plans of the appellants miscarried as to McKeon’s part in the scheme. “Conspiracy is essentially a crime of intent.” Britton v. United States (C.C.A.7) 60 F.(2d) 772, 773, certiorari denied, 287 U.S. 669, 670, 53 S.Ct. 314, 77 L.Ed. 577. The crime here charged was completed when the appellants agreed on the scheme detailed elsewhere in count 1. That agreement is unequivocally alleged, and it is “earmarked” by the subsequent particulars to “identify”…
• United States v. Farr Sugar Corp., 191 F.2d 370 (2d Cir. 1951)
  …, 19 S.Ct. 491, 43 L.Ed. 801. The right to the division of the latter element does not stand on subrogation, but arises directly from the tort.” See also The Cockatoo, 2 Cir., 61 F. 2d 889, 891, 892, certiorari denied Howard v. Randall & McAllister, 287 U.S. 669, 53 S.Ct. 292, 77 L.Ed. 576; and compare Aktieselskabet Cuzco v. The Sucarseco, 294 U.S. 394, 404, 55 S.Ct. 467, 79 L.Ed. 942. Appellants have naturally stressed the point here settled that recovery of di [*377] vided damages is the ship’s own righ…
• Bartle v. Asher S. Markson, 357 F.2d 517 (2d Cir. 1966)
  …oceedings for corporate reorganization under Ch. X, although it does in proceedings for railroad reorganization under § 77 and for arrangements under Ch. XI. . This court’s decision in Lowenstein v. Reikes, 60 F. 2d 933 (2 Cir. 1932), cert. denied, 287 U.S. 669, 53 S.Ct. 315, 77 L.Ed. 577 (1933), need not be read as taking a contrary view since the two transactions joined in the complaint were not so closely related as here. Moreover, that decision was rendered while this court was taking a position as to…