Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

132 F.2d 859

Docket No. 9184.

Stork v. Townsend

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 10, 1942.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1942-12-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1963

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Stork v. Townsend

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1942-12-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See, also, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, 597.

¶2*860Elmer H. Groefsema, of Detroit, Mich., and Daniel I. Rosenthal, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellant.

¶3T. A. Billingsley, of Greenville, Ohio, and I. L. Holderman, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.

¶4Before ALLEN, HAMILTON and Mc-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This case came on to be 'heard upon the record, briefs, and argument of counsel;

¶7And it appearing that appellant sought damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and for breach of warranty, and that the case was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury; and that the court, which heard numerous witnesses give sharply conflicting testimony, and made written findings of fact and conclusions of law, found that the appellant had failed to-establish the material allegations of his amended complaint by a preponderance of evidence;

¶8And it appearing that this finding is not clearly erroneous Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and no issue other than one of fact being presented:

¶9It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

/132/f2d/859 · .json · Public domain