HOPPER ET AL.

v.

ELLIOTT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc., 213 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1954)
  …n, it is still necessary — in order to have an estoppel by fraud, to find either an intent to defraud or to find that Dysart’s act was so grossly negligent as to amount to fraud. Compare O’Connor v. Ludlam, 2 Cir., 92 F. 2d 50, 53, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 758, 58 S.Ct. 364, 82 L.Ed. 586. The Trial Judge found neither actual nor inferential fraud. Certainly the facts found by the trier are adequately supported by the evidence. The inferences drawn by the trier are to be given substantial weight. A fundam…
• C. I. T. Fin. Corp. v. Glover, 224 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1955)
  …primary benefit” of the plaintiff. Whatever the propriety of this charge, and we incline to think it was correct, see Ultra-mares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441, 74 A.L.R. 1139; O’Connor v. Ludlam, 2 Cir., 92 F. 2d 50, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 758, 58 S.Ct. 364, 82 L.Ed. 586, it could not have affected the outcome of the case. It is true that the jury indicated that its finding of absence of duty under count three, with which we are here concerned, was predicated on the emphasis on primary be…