Court Opinion

ID: 9636156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:18:23.466103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:42.762186
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
We did not mean to pass upon whether the claims upon the contracts for the “K boats” were, or were not, already barred on March 15, 1922; or to pass upon whether the contract of that day revived them, if they were already barred. All we decided was that if they were barred and that if the contract intended to revive them, there was good consideration. Upon the trial we leave it open whether these claims were barred, and what effect, if any, the contract of March 15, 1922, had upon them, if they were. We agree with the District Judge that those issues involve questions of fact which should not be decided upon motion for summary judgment.
Petition denied.