Atlantic Rim Trailer

[Niobe Hennigan]

Our25-acre terminal, strategically located in Vincentown, New Jersey, is the home of our main office and trailer preparation facility and our large inventory of trailers and ISO/ Conex shipping containers. A 10,000 square foot shop provides complete trailer body work, repair, fabrication refurbishing and painting services, and is fully staffed by a tenured team of experienced mechanics. Here we also customize ISO shipping containers for a wide range of purposes, from minor modifications, such as installing doors and windows, to field offices, emergency shelters, workshops, housing and other custom applications.

Mid Atlantic Transport Refrigeration offers the latest and greatest in mobile refrigeration technology with a full range of services to keep your fleet running effectively and efficiently. Offering 24-7 emergency repair for trailers, vans, trucks, lift gates, and much more, Mid Atlantic is committed to getting your reefer vehicles back on the road as quickly as possible.

In addition to our repair services, we offer temporary solutions with our sister company Mid Atlantic Trailer Rentals & Truck Leasing. If ownership is important to you, let our sales team assist in providing the best vehicle for your specific application. From unit installation and system repair to custom paint and wraps, Mid Atlantic is truly your one stop shop for all of your transport refrigeration needs!

Atlantic Trailer Village is a well-established trailer park situated in the heart of Cudahy, CA. Offering a range of affordable housing options for individuals and families seeking a convenient and community-oriented living environment.

With a focus on providing a safe and welcoming atmosphere, Atlantic Trailer Village caters to those looking for a peaceful and low-maintenance lifestyle. Residents can enjoy the convenience of nearby amenities and easy access to transportation routes in this quiet and well-maintained community.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District Panama City office, after the office was damaged by Hurricane Michael on Oct. 12, 2018 in Panama City, Fla. USACE Mobile District has deployed office trailers and generators to the office and plans to begin repairs on the facility next week.

USACE Mobile District is also sending a Mission Command Vehicle to the Panama City office that will provide them with communications capability. Repairs are expected to begin on the Panama City office scheduled by this coming Friday, Oct. 19th.

The official public website of the South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and an official U.S. Army website. Email cesa...@usace.army.mil for public and media inquiries. Email jeremy....@usace.army.mil for website corrections.DISCLAIMER: The appearance of hyperlinks do not constitute endorsements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and (organization) does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at linked

On evidence that the defendant induced the plaintiff to sign a blank bill of sale through a false representation that he intended to insert therein, as the subject of the sale, only a motor tractor, whereas it was his intention to include also a trailer, property of the plaintiff, and that he did so include the trailer, a verdict for the plaintiff was warranted in an action for deceit resulting in loss of the title to the trailer.

Upon an issue, at the trial of an action for deceit, whether the plaintiff had been induced to sign in blank a chattel mortgage by false representations of an agent of the mortgagee that it would be filled in as a mortgage of only a tractor, rather than as a mortgage of both a tractor and trailer, a loan receipt signed by the mortgagor, reciting that the mortgage was of both the tractor and the trailer, was not conclusive against him, but was merely evidence.

No abuse of discretion appeared in the denial of a motion by the defendant for a new trial of an action for deceit, where, although it was difficult for this court to discover how the jury reached their conclusion or why the trial judge allowed the verdict to stand, this court on the printed record could not determine that no trial judge honestly and intelligently could have allowed the verdict to stand.

At the trial of an action for deceit in inducing the plaintiff to sign a bill of sale of a trailer and thereby ultimately causing his loss of the trailer, evidence was wrongly admitted to prove loss of profits from the plaintiff's nonuse of the trailer during a period when the plaintiff had abandoned possession thereof, not because of the bill of sale; the measure of his damages was the value of the trailer, which was all that he lost through its being included in the bill of sale.

of tort is for deceit, [Note 1] and alleges that the defendant induced the plaintiff to sign in blank, on one occasion, a form of mortgage and, on a later occasion, a bill of sale, by falsely representing that it intended to fill in the instruments so that, when completed, they would be a mortgage and a bill of sale of the plaintiff's tractor; that the defendant thereafter included in the instruments not only the tractor, but also the plaintiff's trailer; and that in consequence the plaintiff lost his "property" and the use thereof, and sustained loss of business and profits. The answer is a general denial. The jury returned a verdict of $2,000 for the plaintiff. The defendant's exceptions are to rulings on evidence, to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict, to the denial of its requests for instructions, and to the denial of its motion for a new trial.

The only witness on his own behalf was the plaintiff, who testified on direct examination as follows: The defendant previously had financed a tractor and a trailer for the plaintiff. The tractor burned in September, 1944, and in November one Epstein, president and treasurer of the defendant, took care of the settlement of the fire loss. Epstein received the check for the insurance, and had the plaintiff indorse it without permitting him to see its face. The plaintiff decided to purchase a new tractor, which the defendant was to finance, from Allied Freightways, Inc. Epstein said that the plaintiff would have a balance of $500 "after clearing off that deal." The plaintiff discussed the purchase of the tractor with one Cholfin at Allied Freightways, and reported to Epstein that the amount asked, $4,500, was too much. Epstein said he would see what he could do to bring the price down. About November 18 he informed the plaintiff that he could do nothing, and that the asking price stood. When asked by Epstein, the plaintiff assented to signing a mortgage. Epstein went to his cabinet and pulled out a blank mortgage form with "just print on it." Epstein told the plaintiff to sign the mortgage and the note, and said that "he would have the girl fill both papers when she came

Two or three weeks later the plaintiff told Epstein that he was having trouble with the new tractor. Epstein advised the plaintiff to see Cholfin and to learn what arrangements could be made about returning it or receiving back his money. The plaintiff saw Cholfin and reported to Epstein that Cholfin would do nothing. The plaintiff told Epstein that he did not want anything more to do with the tractor, and that he had no place to park the trailer, and asked where he could leave it. Epstein told him to leave it at the Allied Freightways garage, and to pick it up at any time he wanted it. The plaintiff left the tractor and the trailer on East Dedham Street in front of the garage, but not because of any bill of sale. The plaintiff had paid Epstein $100 on account of the mortgage on December 8.

In January, 1945, the plaintiff went to Epstein's office. Epstein asked him to sign a bill of sale "for the tractor" to give it back to Allied Freightways, and the plaintiff agreed. Epstein presented a blank bill of sale, which the plaintiff signed, saying "the deal between him and I was ended."

In March, 1945, the plaintiff arranged to buy a tractor elsewhere. He went to Allied Freightways, but did not see the trailer. He then asked Epstein where it was. Epstein informed him that he had no trailer, as he had given Epstein a bill of sale for it. This the plaintiff denied, asserting that he had signed a bill of sale for the tractor only, and that there was no mortgage on the trailer. This Epstein in turn denied.

The trailer was never returned to the plaintiff. In November, 1944, and January, 1945, its value was $3,000. From January until March, 1945, the date of the acquisition of another trailer, "he was without the equipment of a trailer for about ten weeks." Until he acquired one he was unable to pull any loads. Prior to January 1 when he had his trailer in operation, he had capacity loads.

approximately the same size, he knew that "during three or four months preceding 1945" they averaged about the same amount of money as he did. The plaintiff was asked, "Now, will you give us what the average profit is per week for the type of business of a man operating the same way as you do with a tractor and a trailer for that period in the last of 1944 and the first of 1945?" Subject to the defendant's exception, the plaintiff answered, "I would say an average of between seventy-five and one hundred dollars a week."

On cross-examination the plaintiff testified: Around June or July, 1944, the plaintiff bought out his partner, one Puccia, and acquired the trailer and the tractor. The partnership began in May, and previously Puccia had purchased the trailer on conditional sale. The plaintiff assumed payments on both tractor and trailer, but did not know how much was due. Puccia said he did not know. The plaintiff then made payments to the defendant until the tractor burned. The check was the only paper pertaining to the insurance he knew of signing. He did not know whether he signed a proof of loss. He did not know whether the insurance company settled for $1,300, and never heard of that figure. He signed a "release" dated November 17, 1944, acknowledging receipt from The Employers' Fire Insurance Co. of $1,300 in full satisfaction of the fire loss. The "release," which was admitted in evidence, the plaintiff signed without reading. It purported to be witnessed by F. P. Swain, but the plaintiff did not know him. Also on November 17 the plaintiff signed a proof of loss to the insurance company. The proof of loss was admitted in evidence and gave the "whole insurance" as $3,150 and the "whole loss" as $1,300. The plaintiff signed without reading the proof of loss.

3a8082e126