Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Missouri Corporation v. American Refrigerator Transit Company, a New Jersey Corporation, 7336_1 (1964)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 7336_1 Visitors: 79
Filed: Feb. 19, 1964
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 328 F.2d 569 MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, Appellant, v. AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Appellee. No. 7336. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. Feb. 19, 1964. Douglas McHendrie, of Grant, Shafroth, Toll & McHendrie, Denver, Colo. (Robert W. Yost, St. Louis, Mo., and Preston & Altman, Pueblo, Colo., on the brief), for appellant. William K. Ris, of Wood, Ris & Hames, Denver, Colo., for appellee. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, an
More

328 F.2d 569

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT COMPANY, a New Jersey
corporation, Appellee.

No. 7336.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1964.

Douglas McHendrie, of Grant, Shafroth, Toll & McHendrie, Denver, Colo. (Robert W. Yost, St. Louis, Mo., and Preston & Altman, Pueblo, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.

William K. Ris, of Wood, Ris & Hames, Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The appeal involves the construction of a contract under the substantive law of the State of Colorado. There are no decisions of the Supreme Court of that State directly in point. The court below, after looking at all the provisions of the contract, determined, under the weight of authorities generally, that appellant had a 'duty to inspect'. This court has held that, in the absence of controlling state court authority, we will accept the federal trial judge's interpretation of state law unless we are convinced that such interpretation is clearly erroneous.1 We cannot say the trial court's interpretation in this case is erroneous. Accordingly, on the basis of the trial court's opinion reported in 226 F. Supp. 661 the judgment is affirmed.

1

Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. v. National Distillers Products Co., 10 Cir., 324 F.2d 202; F. & S. Construction Company v. Berube, 10 Cir., 322 F.2d 782; Criqui v. Blaw-Knox Corporation, 10 Cir., 318 F.2d 811

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer