Greenberg

Alaska Mines Corp. v. Greenberg

Good Law
264 F. 929·4 Alaska Fed. 897·1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1338
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 3, 1920No. 3378California1,440 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The solution of the question depends upon the proper construction of the agreement between Greenberg and McLeod of April 17, 1917, which agreement the record shows was the basis of the action brought by the latter in the state court of New York, in which the writ of garnishment was issued and served on the Alaska Mines Corporation; McLeod at the same time submitting to that company the said agreement, so that all of the parties mentioned in the statement of the case were fully aware of the provisions of the latter. Now, read and considered together, as they must be, what is their true meaning?

It is to be remembered that at the time of the execution of that agreement the indebtedness of Greenberg to McLeod had been reduced, from $13,350.81 (secured by the lien of October 9, 1914) to $11,000. That lien was canceled and superseded by that declared and defined in and by the agreement of April 17, 1917. By it Greenberg, it is true, in terms assigned to McLeod an undivided eleven-fortieths interest in the notes aggregating $40,000 and in the mortgage securing them, executed by the Alaska Mines Corporation to Greenberg. Absolutely? We think not, for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.