Narrative Opinion Summary
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed. A majority of seven justices believe the District Court's judgment should be affirmed, while two justices support affirming the Circuit Court's decision. The dissenting justices argue that evidence supporting the alleged contract in the respondent's affidavits is barred by the state parol evidence rule. Additionally, three justices contend that the contract violates public policy and is therefore void, citing relevant case law and regulations. Counsel for the petitioner includes Mr. William Dwight Whitney and Mr. Albert B. Connelly, while the respondent's representation features Mr. J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., along with Messrs. Ralstone R. Irvine and Theodore S. Hope, Jr.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Parol Evidence Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dissenting justices argue that evidence supporting the alleged contract in the respondent's affidavits is inadmissible under the state parol evidence rule.
Reasoning: The dissenting justices argue that evidence supporting the alleged contract in the respondent's affidavits is barred by the state parol evidence rule.
Contract Violation of Public Policysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Three justices assert that the contract is void as it violates public policy, referencing relevant case law and regulations.
Reasoning: Additionally, three justices contend that the contract violates public policy and is therefore void, citing relevant case law and regulations.