Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

American Seating Co. Vs. Zell

American Seating Co. vs Zell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1944
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/97724

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
322 U.S. 709
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

American Seating Co.

Respondent

Zell

Excerpt

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) ]

Full Judgment

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) ]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial