PITCAIRN ET AL., RECEIVERS,

v.

AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• SUN OIL Co. v. The Vickers Ref. Co., Inc., 414 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …elves. Contemporaneous exposition of the contract is entitled to great, if not controlling, influence in ascertaining the intention of the parties.” Pitcairn v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 101 F. 2d 929, 936-937 (8th Cir. 1939), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 566, 60 S.Ct. 78, 84 L.Ed. 475 (1939) (approved and quoted in H. K. Porter Co. v. Wire Rope Corp. of America, 367 F. 2d 653, 660)) 8th Cir. 1966). In resolving the ambiguity in section 2 (d), the trial court appropriately considered evidence relating t…
• Green v. Obergfell, 121 F.2d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
  …the parties to it for any considerable period of time before it comes to be the subject of controversy is deemed of great, if not controlling, influence.” Pitcairn v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 8 Cir., 101 F. 2d 929, 937, certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 566, 60 S.Ct. 78, 84 L.Ed. 475: “Generally speaking, the cardinal rule of interpretation is to ascertain, if possible, from the instrument itself the intention of the parties, and to give effect to that intention. Where there is obscurity or ambiguity,…
• Butts v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. & Nolan Estes, 436 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …om those involved here, and we think it would be improper for us to make any pronouncement upon it. We are not bound by counsels’ interpretation of this document. Pitcairn v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 101 F. 2d 929 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 566, 60 S.Ct. 78, 84 L.Ed. 475 (1939). The underbrush cleared away, the main issue of the case emerges. The Supreme Court held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, supra, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. 733, that wearing black armba…