Affiliations

• Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. Saunders

  Cites People Ex Rel. A.J. Johnson Co. v. . Roberts — People ex rel. A. J. Johnson Co. v. Roberts, 85 App. Div. 624, reversed.

• Saunders v. Piggly Wiggly Corporation

  District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924-09-17 · cited 23×

  This case involves consolidated causes in which a motion was filed seeking to have the regular district judge recuse himself from trying questions in the litigation, supported by an affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice under section 21 of the Judicial Code. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the motion and affidavit, assuming the stated facts to be true for that limited purpose but finding that the motion did not meet the criteria for mandatory disqualification. The opinion notes the judge's discretion under the self-certification provision of the statute when the judge deems himself unable to preside with absolute impartiality. Exercising that discretion, the judge voluntarily recused himself from further consideration of the litigation and related bankruptcy matter without evaluating the truth or falsity of the bias allegations, directing that another judge be designated.

  procedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,048 words)

• In Re Meyer & Judd

  District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924-04-22 · cited 13×

  In this case, a district judge reviewed a referee's decision in what appears to be a bankruptcy proceeding involving interveners seeking to maintain a petition. The court determined that the referee's factual findings were well supported by the record and adopted his legal conclusions in full, confirming the ruling. The core issue concerned whether the interveners, as foreign corporations, could proceed without complying with applicable state statutes, and the judge cited recent authorities affirming the requirement of such compliance.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (217 words)

• Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. Saunders

  District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924-03-28 · cited 11×

  This case concerns a dispute between Piggly Wiggly Corporation and Clarence Saunders over the enforcement of contracts transferring Saunders's patents, trademarks, copyrights, goodwill, and related rights in the "Piggly Wiggly" self-serving grocery store system to the plaintiff corporation in exchange for cash and stock. The plaintiff sought to enjoin Saunders, a Memphis resident, from engaging in the grocery and merchandising business in competition with the assigned rights. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the requested injunction and adjudging costs against the defendant. The core reasoning rested on the broad language of the 1918 and 1919 agreements, which conveyed all existing and future inventions, licenses, trade names, and business interests, thereby preventing Saunders from using or competing with the transferred property.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (8,641 words)

• In Re P. H. Krauss & Co.

  District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1924-02-21 · cited 3×

  In this 1923 bankruptcy case, P. H. Krauss & Co., a Tennessee corporation, was adjudged bankrupt after filing its petition, prompting two suppliers (Davol Rubber Company and Ingersoll Watch Company) to seek reclamation of goods shipped shortly before the filing on grounds that the bankrupt had obtained them through fraud by misrepresenting its solvency while hopelessly insolvent. The special master found that the goods remained identifiable and separate from other stock, and that the bankrupt's knowledge of its insolvency and lack of reasonable expectation of payment constituted constructive fraud equivalent to an intent not to pay, allowing the suppliers to reclaim the merchandise. The district court adopted the master's findings and legal analysis, confirming that good-faith ignorance due to willful failure to face facts does not defeat the fraud claim, and overruled the exception asserting no misrepresentation occurred. The court ordered the report confirmed and reclamation permitted.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,215 words)