Rivercity v. Am. Can Co., 753 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Rivercity v. Am. Can Co., 753 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hazeltine Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Rivercity v. American Can Co., 600 F.Supp. 908, 916 (D.La.1984) (facts must indicate clear and absolute intention to ratify), aff’d. per curiam on other grounds, 753 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir.1985); Thomson McKinnon Securities v. Moore's Farm Supply, 557 F.Supp. 1004, 1012 (W.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RIVERCITY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
84-3309.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 15, 1985.
753 F.2d 1300
George W. Pigman, Corinne A. Morrison, James A. Babst, Robert S. Rooth, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant., Monroe & Lemann, Jerry A. Brown, Linton W. Carney, Jr., New Orleans, La., for American Can Co.
Gee, Reavley, Randall.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM: *

At oral argument, counsel for appellant Rivercity stated (correctly, we believe) that its case depended upon' whether the letter dated September 8, 1971, from Whitney National Bank of New Orleans to Rivercity created a guaranty by Whitney of the obligations of Jackson Brewing Company under Jackson’s option agreement with Riv-ercity. We reject that construction of the September letter; that letter states only that the rights of Rivercity under the option agreement will prime the rights of Whitney under the Act of Collateral Mortgage and related note and the Act of Subordination referred to in the letter. That is a far cry from the guaranty by Whitney of Jackson’s obligations under the option agreement needed for Rivercity to prevail here. Since Whitney did not guarantee those obligations, under no theory could American Can Company have done so.

AFFIRMED.

*

After this opinion was released in unpublished form, the Court was advised that the District Court’s opinion in this case will be published. 600 F.Supp. 908. This opinion is being published so that the public record will be complete.