Chadwick v. Denniston

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Chadwick v. Denniston

41 F. 58, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 31, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 F. 58 (Chadwick v. Denniston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chadwick v. Denniston, 41 F. 58, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, J.,

(after stating his findings and conclusions as above.) In affirming the decision of the district judge, nothing need be added to his exhaustive discussion of the law and the facts of the case as presented to him. The additional testimony taken in the court by the respondent fully establishes the identity of the crank-shaft, while it reiterates and supplements the positive statements of those who actually forged such shaft as to the process of manufacture used by them. Against such testimony the further evidence of the expert Burr, substantially to the effect that he believes it was not m'ade in the way described by those who forged it, and that, in his opinion, the district judge was mistaken- as to the evidential value of 11 years of good service, is not sufficiently persuasive to call for a reversal.

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

Lacombe, J.,

(after stating his findings and conclusions as above.) In affirming the decision of the district judge, nothing need be added to his exhaustive discussion of the law and the facts of the case as presented to him. The additional testimony taken in the court by the respondent fully establishes the identity of the crank-shaft, while it reiterates and supplements the positive statements of those who actually forged such shaft as to the process of manufacture used by them. Against such testimony the further evidence of the expert Burr, substantially to the effect that he believes it was not m'ade in the way described by those who forged it, and that, in his opinion, the district judge was mistaken- as to the evidential value of 11 years of good service, is not sufficiently persuasive to call for a reversal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. 58, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-denniston-circtsdny-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack