Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

American Seating Company v. Lucian T. Zell, 613 (1944)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: 613 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 08, 1944
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 322 U.S. 709 64 S. Ct. 1053 88 L. Ed. 1552 AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY, petitioner, v. Lucian T. ZELL. No. 613. Supreme Court of the United States May 8, 1944 Messrs. Wm. Dwight Whitney and Albert R. Connelly, both of New York City (Mr. John Logan O'Donnell, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. J. Edward Lumbard, Jr. and Theodore S. Hope, Jr., both of New York City (Messrs. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Lumbard, and Ralstone R. Irvine, all of New York City, and Charles W. Sellers
More

322 U.S. 709

64 S. Ct. 1053

88 L. Ed. 1552

AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY, petitioner,
v.
Lucian T. ZELL.

No. 613.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 8, 1944

Messrs. Wm. Dwight Whitney and Albert R. Connelly, both of New York City (Mr. John Logan O'Donnell, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.

Messrs. J. Edward Lumbard, Jr. and Theodore S. Hope, Jr., both of New York City (Messrs. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Lumbard, and Ralstone R. Irvine, all of New York City, and Charles W. Sellers, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent.

On writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

1

In this case two members of the Court think that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed. Seven are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the judgment of the District Court affirmed—four because proof of the contract alleged in respondent's affidavits on the motion for summary judgment is precluded by the applicable state parol evidence rule, and three because the contract is contrary to public policy and void, see Tool Company v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45, 54, 17 L. Ed. 868; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71, 79, 26 S. Ct. 567, 568, 50 L. Ed. 939, 6 Ann.Cas. 217; Executive Order No. 9001, Tit. II, par. 5, 6 Fed.Reg. 6788, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 611 note; War Department Procurement Regulations, 10 Code Fed.Reg. (Cum.Supp.) sec. 81.1181. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.

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