Freund v. Yaegerman

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Freund v. Yaegerman

27 F. 248, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2071

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedMarch 25, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 27 F. 248 (Freund v. Yaegerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freund v. Yaegerman, 27 F. 248, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2071 (circtedmo 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Brewer, J.,

(orally.) In Freund against Yaegerman there is a petition for a rehearing. The case comes clearly within the line of the eases heretofore decided in this court, commencing with Martin v. Hausman, 14 Fed. Rep. 160, and ending with Clapp v. Nordmeyer, 25 Fed. Rep. 71. In the course of the various opinions that I have had occasion to express, I have stated fully my own views, ^nd the reasons why, in deference to the opinions of the other judges in this district, including the presiding justice, I have made those decisions. In the last, or next to the last, of those eases I stated that that would be the rule of this court until there had been an authoritative declaration by the supreme court of the United States or the supreme court of the state of Missouri to the contrary. Now there is presented a decision of the Kansas City court of appeals which it is claimed enunciates views different from those announced heretofore, and in harmony with the opinions that I pers.onally hold, and I am asked to reverse the line of decisions here. That is not an authoritative exposition of the law in Missouri. The St. Louis court of appeals may rule one way and the Kansas City court of appeals another. There is but the one authoritative expounder of the Missouri statutes in this state, and that is your supreme court. So the petition for the rehearing will be denied.

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

Brewer, J.,

(orally.) In Freund against Yaegerman there is a petition for a rehearing. The case comes clearly within the line of the eases heretofore decided in this court, commencing with Martin v. Hausman, 14 Fed. Rep. 160, and ending with Clapp v. Nordmeyer, 25 Fed. Rep. 71. In the course of the various opinions that I have had occasion to express, I have stated fully my own views, ^nd the reasons why, in deference to the opinions of the other judges in this district, including the presiding justice, I have made those decisions. In the last, or next to the last, of those eases I stated that that would be the rule of this court until there had been an authoritative declaration by the supreme court of the United States or the supreme court of the state of Missouri to the contrary. Now there is presented a decision of the Kansas City court of appeals which it is claimed enunciates views different from those announced heretofore, and in harmony with the opinions that I pers.onally hold, and I am asked to reverse the line of decisions here. That is not an authoritative exposition of the law in Missouri. The St. Louis court of appeals may rule one way and the Kansas City court of appeals another. There is but the one authoritative expounder of the Missouri statutes in this state, and that is your supreme court. So the petition for the rehearing will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. 248, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freund-v-yaegerman-circtedmo-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack