Felix Frankfurter

Name: United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court
Author: Felix Frankfurter

United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Felix Frankfurter. It explores elements such as loan, Fruehauf and Beck.

Quotes from United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court (Felix Frankfurter)

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ It ruled:
'I am convinced that the language which I read into the record from the Government's brief is a judicial admission that this transaction was a loan. I have no doubt in my own mind at least, that in a trial either to the court or the jury, in a preliminary hearing where the defendants have not yet subjected themselves to jeopardy, if the Government established the facts which it recounted in its brief that it intended to prove, a finding by a jury to the contrary would have to be set aside, nor could the Court find to the contrary. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ Of course, an undertaking by counsel here, however honorable its impulse, cannot bind the Government in the future. And the District Court's ruling, insofar as it purports to close any avenues open to the Government under the indictment-not in view of specifications made in a bill of particulars or an opening statement, but on the basis of a 'judicial admission' culled from a pretrial memorandum-was impermissible and constitutes an insufficient basis to justify the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction on direct appeal. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ Argument on the motion was had, and government counsel reiterated his position:
'The Court: Assuming that this case was tried and the Court was disposed to frame special interrogatories to the jury, and one of those interrogatories was, Was the transaction a loan, and the jury brought back the answer No: do you think the Court could allow that answer to stand on the basis of the facts as you have set them forth in your brief, or wouldn't the Court have to set aside the finding as being contrary to the evidence and the weight of the evidence? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ Such opinions, such advance expressions of legal judgment upon issues which remain unfocused because they are not pressed before the Court with that clear concreteness provided when a question emerges precisely framed and necessary for decision from a clash of adversary argument exploring every aspect of a multifaceted situation embracing conflicting and demanding interests, we have consistently refused to give. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ After adverting to the size of the 'loan,' the fact that no collateral was given, and the facts that the 'loan' could not be processed through financial institutions, that no interest was paid between the corporations although the transaction purported to require its payment, and that Beck did not in fact pay the 4% interest due under the terms of his note to Brown, government counsel concluded: 'That is our first position. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ On June 17, 1959, an indictment in two counts was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against appellees Roy Fruehauf, Fruehauf Trailer Co., Burge Seymour, Associated Transport, Inc., and Brown Equipment and Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Fruehauf-Seymour group) [1] and appellee Dave Beck. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court

“ On December 27, 1954, Seymour borrowed $200,000 at 4% per annum for 90 days from Manufacturers Trust Co., collateralizing the loan with Beck's note and obligations of Fruehauf, Seymour and others, including an attorney for Fruehauf Trailer Co. (5) Seymour paid $2,066.66 interest to Manufacturers Trust, and by check dated March 30, 1955, returned the $200,000 loan to the bank. (6) 'Beck paid the $200,000 loan from Brown by remitting to Seymour $163,215. ”

Felix Frankfurter

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Fruehauf — Opinion of the Court (Felix Frankfurter)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature