Palicio y Compania v. Brush, No. 415
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 375 F.2d 1011 |
| Docket Number | Docket 30984.,No. 415 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1967 |
| Parties | F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S. A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S. A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees. |
375 F.2d 1011 (1967)
F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S. A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S. A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S. A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees,
v.
Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.
No. 415, Docket 30984.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1967.
Decided April 26, 1967.
Leonard B. Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz & Boudin, New York City, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants-appellees.
Jac M. Wolff, New York City (Brush & Bloch, New York City, Monroe Percy Bloch, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants-appellees.
Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Having considered the various points raised by plaintiffs-appellants-appellees and defendants-appellants-appellees, we are of the opinion that Judge Bryan's discussion of the facts and his analysis and application of the law are correct; we therefore affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion reported at 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc v. Republic of Cuba, No. 73-1288
...345 F.Supp. 527 (SDNY 1972), and in closely related litigatn, F. Palicio y Compania, S.A. v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (SDNY 1966), aff'd, 375 F.2d 1011 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 95, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 (1967). For present purposes, the following recitation will suffice. In 1960, t......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, No. 59
...the corporation were owned by resident Cuban citizens, see F. Palico y Compania v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (SDNY 1966), aff'd per curiam, 375 F.2d 1011 (2 Cir. 1967), but such is not the case here. We repeat with emphasis our earlier When a foreign state treats a corporation in a particular ......
-
Menendez v. Saks and Company, No. 872
...pending a determination of these rights and then were adjusted to conform to the Palicio decision, which was affirmed by this court. 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Brush v. Republic of Cuba, 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 95, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 After Palicio was decided, the interventors (includ......
-
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss, Jena, No. 62 Civ. 850.
...First National City Bank, 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965); F. Palicio y Compania, S. A. v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481, 486 (S.D. N.Y.1966), affd., 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 293 F. Supp. 911 1967). The "act of state" doctrine may therefore be invoked here as an independent basis for recognition of the W......
-
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc v. Republic of Cuba, No. 73-1288
...345 F.Supp. 527 (SDNY 1972), and in closely related litigatn, F. Palicio y Compania, S.A. v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (SDNY 1966), aff'd, 375 F.2d 1011 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 95, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 (1967). For present purposes, the following recitation will suffice. In 1960, t......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, No. 59
...the corporation were owned by resident Cuban citizens, see F. Palico y Compania v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (SDNY 1966), aff'd per curiam, 375 F.2d 1011 (2 Cir. 1967), but such is not the case here. We repeat with emphasis our earlier When a foreign state treats a corporation in a particular ......
-
Menendez v. Saks and Company, No. 872
...pending a determination of these rights and then were adjusted to conform to the Palicio decision, which was affirmed by this court. 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Brush v. Republic of Cuba, 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 95, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 After Palicio was decided, the interventors (includ......
-
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss, Jena, No. 62 Civ. 850.
...First National City Bank, 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965); F. Palicio y Compania, S. A. v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481, 486 (S.D. N.Y.1966), affd., 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 293 F. Supp. 911 1967). The "act of state" doctrine may therefore be invoked here as an independent basis for recognition of the W......