Druckman v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Druckman v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.

23 F.2d 493, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3199

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

DocketNo. 2629

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.2d 493 (Druckman v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Druckman v. Forsyth Furniture Lines, Inc., 23 F.2d 493, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3199 (4th Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error has presented a petition for rehearing, on the ground that the court overlooked the assignment of error which alleged error in the trial court in declining to grant his motion to set aside the verdiet and judgment, and grant a new trial, by reason of his alleged illness and unavoidable absence. The point was not overlooked, hut was fully discussed in the opinion in connection with the refusal of the trial court to grant a continuance. The granting or refusal of the motion for continuance was in the discretion of the trial court. The granting or refusal of the motion for new trial, was likewise in the discretion of the trial* court; and no useful purpose could have been subserved by further discussion.

Petition for rehearing denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error has presented a petition for rehearing, on the ground that the court overlooked the assignment of error which alleged error in the trial court in declining to grant his motion to set aside the verdiet and judgment, and grant a new trial, by reason of his alleged illness and unavoidable absence. The point was not overlooked, hut was fully discussed in the opinion in connection with the refusal of the trial court to grant a continuance. The granting or refusal of the motion for continuance was in the discretion of the trial court. The granting or refusal of the motion for new trial, was likewise in the discretion of the trial* court; and no useful purpose could have been subserved by further discussion.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 493, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/druckman-v-forsyth-furniture-lines-inc-ca4-1928.