Burnham Chemical Company and George B. Burnham, President v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States

D.C. Circuit

Burnham Chemical Company and George B. Burnham, President v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States

251 F.2d 388, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3567

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1958

Docket14120

StatusPublished

This text of 251 F.2d 388 (Burnham Chemical Company and George B. Burnham, President v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnham Chemical Company and George B. Burnham, President v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States, 251 F.2d 388, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3567 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court plaintiffs, appellants in this court, filed their complaint April 29, 1955, seeking a judgment declaring null and void Fraud Order No. 3006 issued by the Postmaster General pursuant to Rev. Stat. §§ 3929, 4041 (1875), as amended, 39 U.S.C.A. §§ 259, 732, and enjoining its enforcement on the ground of its alleged invalidity at the time it was issued June 20, 1925. The motion of plaintiffs for summary judg *389 ment was denied and that of the defendant Postmaster General was granted on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches. We affirm. This does not preclude appellants from initiating before the Postmaster General proceedings for such relief, if any, as they may be entitled to receive by reason of the current situation. 1

Affirmed.

1

. See Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178, 184, 68 S.Ct. 591, 92 L.Ed. 628.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court plaintiffs, appellants in this court, filed their complaint April 29, 1955, seeking a judgment declaring null and void Fraud Order No. 3006 issued by the Postmaster General pursuant to Rev. Stat. §§ 3929, 4041 (1875), as amended, 39 U.S.C.A. §§ 259, 732, and enjoining its enforcement on the ground of its alleged invalidity at the time it was issued June 20, 1925. The motion of plaintiffs for summary judg *389 ment was denied and that of the defendant Postmaster General was granted on the ground of plaintiffs’ laches. We affirm. This does not preclude appellants from initiating before the Postmaster General proceedings for such relief, if any, as they may be entitled to receive by reason of the current situation. 1

Affirmed.

1

. See Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178, 184, 68 S.Ct. 591, 92 L.Ed. 628.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 F.2d 388, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 147, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnham-chemical-company-and-george-b-burnham-president-v-arthur-e-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack