AMERICAN SEATING CO. v. ZELL, 322 U.S. 709 (1944)

U.S. Supreme Court

AMERICAN SEATING CO. v. ZELL, 322 U.S. 709 (1944)

322 U.S. 709

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.

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; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71, 79, 26 S. Ct. 567, 568, 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.[ American Seating Co v. Zell 322 U.S. 709 (1944) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

AMERICAN SEATING CO. v. ZELL, 322 U.S. 709 (1944)

 322 U.S. 709

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.

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; Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71, 79, 26 S. Ct. 567, 568, 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.[ American Seating Co v. Zell 322 U.S. 709 (1944) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.