F. S. LEWIS & CO. ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1982)
  …tals continued to be primarily liable for those charges. Illinois Steel Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 320 U. S. 508, 513 (1944); New York, N. H. & H.R. Co. v. California Fruit Growers Exchange, 125 Conn. 241, 254-255, 5 A. 2d 353, 359, cert. denied, 308 U. S. 567 (1939). See also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Central Iron Co., 265 U. S. 59, 65-67 (1924). It is perhaps appropriate to note that a carrier has not only the right but also the duty to recover its proper charges for services performed. Id., at…
• Bergeron v. Mansour, 152 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1945)
  …, as a defense to the action when brought.” Morality and justice form the basis for equitable estoppel and neither consideration nor legal obligation are required to support it. Robinson v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 100 F. 2d 847, 849, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 567, 60 S.Ct. 81, 84 L.Ed. 476. Defendant argues that estoppel is predicated upon a promise sufficiently certain to understand readily what the promissor undertakes; that the promise must be expressed, and contain an offer of a specific sum of money.…
• Rooted Hair, Inc. v. Ideal TOY Corp., 329 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1964)
  …area is that a pre-filing date of invention may not be established by the inventor’s uncorroborated testimony alone. Thompson v. American Tobacco Co., 174 F. 2d 773 (4 Cir. 1949); Oliver Machinery Co. v. Gellman, 104 F. 2d 11 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 567, 60 S.Ct. 80, 84 L.Ed. 476 (1939). Insofar as it claims a date of late 1952 for conception, and January 1953 for reduction to practice, that is all plaintiff offered. Sotzky’s testimony was that in the fall of 1952 representatives of Wiggy, Inc. ap…