U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1985

Rivercity v. American Can Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 15, 1985 · Gee, Reavley, Randall

753 F.2d 1300; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28187 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Spruiell v. Ludwig (La. Ct. App. 1990)
VeroBlue Farms USA Inc v. Wulf (District Court, N.D. Texas 2023)
Water Craft Management, L.L.C. v. Mercury Marine (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2004)
Nalty v. D.H. Holmes Co. (La. Ct. App. 2004)
State Bank & Trust Co. v. Boat "D.J. Griffin" (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1991)
In re Clark (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1989)
Unsecured Creditors Committee of Debtor v. Noyes (In re STN Enterprises, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont 1987)
Hazeltine Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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After this opinion was released in unpublished form, the Court was advised that the District Court’s opinion in this case will be published. 600 F.Supp. 908.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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.