State of Texas v. Anderson, Clayton Company

Decision Date15 November 1937
Docket NumberNo. 496,496
Citation302 U.S. 747,58 S.Ct. 265,82 L.Ed. 578
PartiesThe STATE OF TEXAS, petitioner, v. ANDERSON, CLAYTON & COMPANY * et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. A. L. Reed, of Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.

For opinion below, see 92 F.(2d) 104.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corporation, 282.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 17, 1944
    ... ...         When the bankrupt, B. Westermann Company, Inc., filed its bankruptcy petition on March 5, 1942, the ... Under the relevant state authorities, as well as the substantially identical case of ... 210, 220, 40 S.Ct. 139, 64 S.Ct. 229; State of Texas v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 258 U.S. 204, 217, 42 S.Ct. 281, ... ...
  • State of Tex. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 6, 1989
    ...Pacific, 565 F.2d at 619).32 Id. at 73.33 Texas v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., 92 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 747, 58 S.Ct. 265, 82 L.Ed. 578 (1937).34 719 F.2d 304 (9th Cir.1983).35 407 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 819, 90 S.Ct. 56, 24 L.Ed.2d 70 (1969).36......
  • Seguros Comercial Americas v. AMERICAN PRES. LINES
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • October 4, 1995
    ...the character of the shipment." State of Texas v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., 92 F.2d 104, 105 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 747, 58 S.Ct. 265, 82 L.Ed. 578 (1937). Seguros' attempt to contradict the terms of the bill of lading by deposition testimony and by isolated language from APL's t......
  • Nueces County Appraisal Dist. v. Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 1993
    ...699, 700-01, 701 n. 2 (11th Cir.1986); State v. Anderson, Clayton & Co., 92 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir.1937), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 747, 58 S.Ct. 265, 82 L.Ed. 578 (1937); Binderup v. Pathe Exch., Inc., 263 U.S. 291, 309, 44 S.Ct. 96, 99, 68 L.Ed. 308 In Swift, the court considered the intent ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT