Carradine v. De Stefano

Fifth Circuit

Carradine v. De Stefano

112 F.2d 168, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4255, 1940 A.M.C. 1036

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 7, 1940·No. No. 9470·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The libel was in rem for damages and for maintenance and cure on account of injuries claimed to have been received to libelant’s right hand. On findings that li-belant had failed to prove that he received an injury, the District Judge dismissed the libel. 28 F.Supp. 659. Here, appellant, insisting that the findings are without support in the evidence, urges reversal.

We do not agree with appellant. The record fully supports the findings.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The libel was in rem for damages and for maintenance and cure on account of injuries claimed to have been received to libelant’s right hand. On findings that li-belant had failed to prove that he received an injury, the District Judge dismissed the libel. 28 F.Supp. 659. Here, appellant, insisting that the findings are without support in the evidence, urges reversal.

We do not agree with appellant. The record fully supports the findings.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Carradine v. De Stefano, 112 F.2d 168, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4255, 1940 A.M.C. 1036 (5th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

112 F.2d 168 (Carradine v. De Stefano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related