Nix v. Art Neon Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Eastport Steamship Corp.

    255 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that Rule 17 of the Court of Claims, which is modeled after Rule 13, allows for dismissal of claims in a second suit that should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims in the first suit, even though the first suit had not yet come to judgment

    There the payments were made under a contract without deducting amounts to which the debtor was entitled under the same contract. "The account was a single one; the payment was for the balance due as between the parties; * * *" 297 F. 60, 64. Cf. Nix v. Art Neon Co., 1940, 105 Colo. 562, 100 P.2d 165. Here, there was not a "single account" between the parties, nor did the Government's payment purport to establish a balance between them.

  2. Young Electric Sign v. Lynch

    365 P.2d 648 (Nev. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    The same is true as to the claimed error in receiving evidence of prior leases of the sign. In Nix v. Art Neon Co., 105 Colo. 562, 100 P.2d 165, the Colorado Supreme Court held, among other things, that a lessor of a sign may not neglect it for a substantial period of time and expect to collect rent for the balance of the term. In the light of the material findings of the trial court which are supported by substantial evidence, we believe the holding in Nix, supra, to have application here.