Andrews v. Thum
72 F. 290, 18 C.C.A. 566, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1708
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided February 15, 1896·No. No. 89·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The mandate has been correctly drawn. Although the record shows a Anal decree in May, yet, in fact, that decree was suspended by a motion for rehearing, and did not take effect and become operative till that motion was overruled, in June. The appeal was from this decree when it took effect, and became the final decree in the cause. It is unnecessary in the mandate to make recitation of every step in the various stages of the cause.
The mandate as drawn by the clerk is ordered to issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Andrews v. Thum, 72 F. 290, 18 C.C.A. 566, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1708 (1st Cir. 1896).
72 F. 290 (Andrews v. Thum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Verna Z. Shafer v. Children's Hospital Society of Los Angeles, California
265 F.2d 107 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)