Citation network
Coombes Vs. Getz
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 11, 1932
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
U.S. 434 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Coombes v. GetzSearch
-
U.S. 434 (1932) Coombes v. GetzSearch
-
of the provision of law upon which it was based. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the appeal, Coombes v. FranklinSearch
-
or statutory provisions said to create the contract or by which it is asserted an impairment has been effected. Scott v. McNealSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. TennesseeSearch
-
Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. NewSearch
-
New Orleans Waterworks v. LouisianaSearch
-
Bridge Proprietors v. HobokenSearch
-
vested property rights nor the obligation of contracts of third persons may be destroyed or impaired. Tomlinson v. JessupSearch
-
Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co. v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 173 U. S. 690 . Compare Greenwood v. FreightSearch
-
not destroy or impair the previously vested right of the creditor (which in every sense was a property right, Ettor v. TacomaSearch
-
U. S. 124 , 106 U. S. 132 ) to enforce his cause of action upon the contract. Ettor v. TacomaSearch
-
Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSearch
-
Ochiltree v. RailroadSearch
-
Harrison v. RemingtonSearch
-
Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. MyersSearch
-
constitutional provision which entered into the contract, and will be followed and applied by this Court. Warburton v. WhiteSearch
-
Ennis Water Works v. EnnisSearch
-
they fail to establish the premises upon which the conclusion is based. The decisions chiefly relied upon are Moss v. SmithSearch
-
Cal. 777, 155 P. 90, and Willcox v. EdwardsSearch
-
Moss v. SmithSearch
-
Nothing in Winchester v. HowardSearch
-
As already suggested, Winchester v. HowardSearch
-
in the latter, it is contractual. In Willcox v. EdwardsSearch
-
otherwise if the court had deemed the right to be contractual. Another case relied upon is Napa state Hospital v. FlahertySearch
-
in the eye of the law, created against himself a contractual liability in the nature of a suretyship. Harrison v. RemingtonSearch
-
and effect of the transaction are no longer open. It is settled by decisions of this and other federal courts ( Ettor v. TacomaSearch
-
November 4, 1930. The Supreme Court of California has said that the liability thus created is contractual ( Dean v. ShingleSearch
-
the tangle is unraveled. The petitioner had a contract with the corporation, and not with anyone else ( Crane v. HahloSearch
-
law to the obligation of that contract was a liability purely statutory imposed on the directors. Compare Christopher v. NorvellSearch
-
the embezzled moneys as if the director were a surety to the corporation for the acts of its defaulting officer. Dean v. ShingleSearch
-
Winchester v. HowardSearch
-
the product is a contract to be protected Page 285 U. S. 450 by the power of the nation. Appleby v. NewSearch
-
aimed at true agreements, and not at quasi -contracts, as distinguished from agreements implied in fact. Crane v. HahloSearch
-
Louisiana v. NewSearch
-
first instance to the corporation itself, though the creditors and shareholders were privileged to enforce it. Dean v. ShingleSearch
-
cast upon directors and one cast upon the shareholders, who are quasi -partners in the venture. Corning v. McCulloughSearch
-
or the Fourteenth Amendment (which, however, is not invoked) might then stand in the way. Hawthorne v. CalefSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial