SCHENLEY DISTILLERS, INC., ET AL.
v.
BINGLER, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
SCHENLEY DISTILLERS, INC., ET AL.
BINGLER, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
353 U.S. 933
Supreme Court of the United States (1957)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Voest-Alpine Int'l Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 707 F.2d 680 (2d Cir. 1983)…ight and an intention to relinquish it. See City of New York v. State of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 659, 669, 389 N.Y.S.2d 332, 357 N.E. 2d 988 (1976); Werking v. Amity Estates, Inc., 2 N.Y.2d 43, 52, 155 N.Y.S.2d 633, 137 N.E. 2d 321 (1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 812, 1 L.Ed.2d 756 (1957). There is little doubt that Voest sufficiently established Chase’s knowledge of an existing right. Chase clearly had the right to demand strict compliance with the specifications required by the letters of credit,…