Blount v. Downs

194 F. 1020, 114 C.C.A. 664, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1251
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 9, 1912·No. No. 2,233·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions presented on this writ of error are substantially the same as on the former writ between the same parties in the same [1021] case, and on consideration we find no sufficient reason to change our ruling and conclusion on the former writ, as reported in Downs v. Blount, 170 Fed. 15, 95 C. C. A. 289, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1076. As to the re-examination on a subsequent writ of error of questions decided under former writ, see Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498, 24 L. Ed. 260; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464, 1 Sup. Ct. 568, 27 L. Ed. 302; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567, 6 Sup. Ct. 518. 29 L. Ed. 727: Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 144 U. S. 451, 456, 18 Sup. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blount v. Downs, 194 F. 1020, 114 C.C.A. 664, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1251 (5th Cir. 1912).

194 F. 1020 (Blount v. Downs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Andrus v. Hutchinson
17 F.2d 472 (Fifth Circuit, 1927)