No. 17, Docket 21329.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Argued October 7, 1949.
Decided October 19, 1949.
Herman Mendes, New York City, for appellant.
Jacob W. Friedman, New York City, for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The only question open to defendant who appeals is whether the judgment followed the award, and that it did. The award was that the defendant “shall accept merchandise ordered under the contract dated April 19, 1948, and shall pay the sum of $4,963.73” to the plaintiff. The judgment merely directed that the plaintiff should have judgment against the defendant for the sum of the award less one percent. The change made in the amount was in the defendant’s favor; nor was it necessary that the judgment should follow literally the award in directing the defendant to “accept” the merchandise. Incidentally, the award was correct under the contract, although that point was probably not available to the plaintiff, as it did not move to amend the award. The contract provided that if the seller had determined that “the buyer’s credit limit had been reached” it might “demand cash in advance of shipments” and that is just what it did.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 200
55 F.4th 377 (2022) IN RE: LATAM AIRLINES GROUP S.A., Debtor. TLA Claimholders Group, Appellant,…
Docket No. 20-2709. FRANCIS P. LIVELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAFRA INVESTMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC., AKA WAFRA…
677 F.3d 72 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William SCOTT, aka William Boone,…
Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Kever, 260 F. 534 (1919) April 22,…
ROSLYN LA LIBERTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOY REID, Defendant-Appellee. No. 19-3574.United States Court of Appeals, Second…
212 F.2d 731 (1954) HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK et al. v. DAVILA. No.…