Bone v. Albrecht

Sixth Circuit

Bone v. Albrecht

168 F.2d 399, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 1948

DocketNo. 10583

StatusPublished

This text of 168 F.2d 399 (Bone v. Albrecht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bone v. Albrecht, 168 F.2d 399, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057 (6th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard on the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel; and it appearing that the findings of fact of the trial court are not clearly erroneous; and no error appearing in the Court’s conclusions of law, Sect. 2695(a) (c), Tennessee Code Supplement 1941; Inter-City Trucking Co. v. Daniels, 181 Tenn. 126, 178 S.W.2d 756; Huntsman Brothers, Inc., v. Grocers Baking Co., 12 Tenn.App. 535; Main Street Transfer & Storage Co. v. Smith, 166 Tenn. 482, 63 S.W.2d 665; and the issue of excessive damages being one for the District Court upon the motion for a new trial, Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. Hanks, 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 482, 486; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Bennett, 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 884, 887; and the action of the trial court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial not appearing to be an abuse of its discretion in the matter; it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and is, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard on the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel; and it appearing that the findings of fact of the trial court are not clearly erroneous; and no error appearing in the Court’s conclusions of law, Sect. 2695(a) (c), Tennessee Code Supplement 1941; Inter-City Trucking Co. v. Daniels, 181 Tenn. 126, 178 S.W.2d 756; Huntsman Brothers, Inc., v. Grocers Baking Co., 12 Tenn.App. 535; Main Street Transfer & Storage Co. v. Smith, 166 Tenn. 482, 63 S.W.2d 665; and the issue of excessive damages being one for the District Court upon the motion for a new trial, Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. Hanks, 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 482, 486; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Bennett, 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 884, 887; and the action of the trial court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial not appearing to be an abuse of its discretion in the matter; it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and is, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F.2d 399, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bone-v-albrecht-ca6-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack