HARDEE, RECEIVER, ET AL.

v.

AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Petitions of The Kinsman Transit Co., 338 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1964)
  …urther construction or through dynamiting, which allegedly would have been only voluntary on its part. Cf. Faust v. City of Cleveland, 121 F. 810 (6 Cir. 1903). But see City of Detroit v. Wyandotte Transp. Co., 76 F. 2d 674 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 595, 56 S.Ct. 112, 80 L.Ed. 422 (1935). (2) Negligence of Kinsman and Continental. The mooring of the Shiras, as to which more will be said under the next heading, was the joint work of Kinsman, acting through Captain Davies, her former master, and of…
• United States v. Willis, 164 F.2d 453 (4th Cir. 1947)
  …f a contract implied in fact; and it is well settled that, under the Tucker Act, there is no jurisdiction to render judgment on a contract implied merely in law. Baltimore Mail S. S. Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 76 F. 2d 582, 584, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 595, 56 S.Ct. 111, 80 L.Ed. 421; G. T. Fogle & Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F. 2d 117, 120, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 771, 64 S.Ct. 83, 88 L.Ed. 461; Eastern Extension Tel. Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 355, 40 S.Ct. 168, 170, 64 L.Ed. 305. As sa…
• Majestic Builders Corp. v. Harris, 598 F.2d 238 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
  …id from the outset by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. See Freedman’s Saving & Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U.S. 494, 8 S.Ct. 1250, 32 L.Ed. 163 (1888); Hardee v. American Security & Trust Co., 64 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 262, 77 F. 2d 382, 385, cert. denied, 296 U.S. 595, 56 S.Ct. 110, 80 L.Ed. 421 (1935). This Court need not determine whether the rationale of these cases is inconsistent with the authorities cited by Syphax. For, even under the rule relied upon by Syphax and FNMA, the instant assignment cannot be s…