SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO.

v.

CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET AL.; ABERDEEN MOTOR SUPPLY CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET AL.; AND F. E. ROWE SALES CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

• Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1945)
  …o. v. Wilson, 209 U. S. 275, 276; Bates v. Miller, 133 F. 2d 645, 647-648 ; 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2496. And the rule obtains in criminal as well as in civil cases. Sheridan v. United States, 112 F. 2d 503, 504, rev’d on other grounds 312 U. S. 654; Edwards v. United States, 7 F. 2d 357, 359; Baldwin v. United States, 72 F. 2d 810, 812. Why then must we disregard Cramer’s admissions at the trial? Why must we assume, as does this Court, that those admissions are out of the case and that our de…
• Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  …2); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States, supra; Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 25 L.Ed, 68 (1878); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., supra; Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 61 S.Ct. 235, 312 U.S. 654 (1940); United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966); Fauber v. United States, 37 F.Supp. 415, 93 Ct.Cl. 11 (1941); Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor, 252 F. 2d 589 (9th Cir. 1957); Carl Braun, Inc. v. Kendall-Lamar Corp., 116 F.…
• Gaunt v. United States, 184 F.2d 284 (1st Cir. 1950)
  …ot an “attempt” under that subseetion. Since the hypothesis is in error, there is no need to discuss these arguments. . We are unable to discern any contrary indication in the per cilrialn decisions of the Supreme Court in Sherwin v. United States, 312 U.S. 654, 61 S.Ct. 618, 85 L.Ed. 1104 and Hemphill v. United States, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S.Ct. 729, 85 L. Ed. 1106, upon which the defendant relies. . “ ‘Wilfully’ means knowingly, and with a bad heart, and a bad intent; it means having the purpose to cheat or…