Filed: Aug. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-60131 _ AMPLICON INC., doing business as Amplicon Financial, Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION, a Mississippi Corporation; L.E. RHIAN, JR.; Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants, DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg (2:94-CV-376-PS) _ August 06, 1998 Before KING, SMITH, and PARK
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-60131 _ AMPLICON INC., doing business as Amplicon Financial, Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION, a Mississippi Corporation; L.E. RHIAN, JR.; Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants, DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg (2:94-CV-376-PS) _ August 06, 1998 Before KING, SMITH, and PARKE..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-60131
_____________________
AMPLICON INC., doing business as Amplicon
Financial,
Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
v.
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION, a Mississippi
Corporation; L.E. RHIAN, JR.;
Defendants - Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
(2:94-CV-376-PS)
_________________________________________________________________
August 06, 1998
Before KING, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court correctly concluded that this case was
controlled by Cal. Civ. Code § 3311 and, following a full bench
trial, made all findings of fact necessary for the application of
§ 3311. Those findings of fact, particularly the critical
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
finding that Murray’s tender of the check for the disputed amount
was made in good faith, are not clearly erroneous. Since
Amplicon did prevail on its claim for the last lease payment, the
district court did not err in its disposition of the claims for
legal fees.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2