George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

D.C. Circuit

George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

238 F.2d 30

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1956

Docket13145

StatusPublished

This text of 238 F.2d 30 (George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased v. Northern Pacific Railway Company) 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

George A. Landell, of E. A. Landell, Deceased v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 238 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is here a second time. The District Court (Judge Tamm) originally held the action barred by laches, rendering a careful opinion upon the point. 1 Landell appealed, and this court affirmed. 2 Certiorari was sought but was denied. 3 The mandate of this court *31 issued, and the District Court entered judgment upon it. In doing so it assessed costs. Landell appealed from that judgment, using as procedural justification the feature of costs. Once here, however, he bases the merits of the appeal upon alleged flaws in the findings and other premises upon which the original judgment was based. Those questions are no longer open. Of course a judgment in the posture of this one may be attacked for fraud in its procurement. While appellant clothes his attack in language appropriate to such an issue, no fact remotely suggesting any such infirmity in the present judgment appears here.

The order of the District Court upon the mandate of this court is

Affirmed.

1

. D.C.1954, 122 F.Supp. 253.

2

. 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 223 F.2d 316.

3

. 1955, 350 U.S. 844, 76 S.Ct. 85.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is here a second time. The District Court (Judge Tamm) originally held the action barred by laches, rendering a careful opinion upon the point. 1 Landell appealed, and this court affirmed. 2 Certiorari was sought but was denied. 3 The mandate of this court *31 issued, and the District Court entered judgment upon it. In doing so it assessed costs. Landell appealed from that judgment, using as procedural justification the feature of costs. Once here, however, he bases the merits of the appeal upon alleged flaws in the findings and other premises upon which the original judgment was based. Those questions are no longer open. Of course a judgment in the posture of this one may be attacked for fraud in its procurement. While appellant clothes his attack in language appropriate to such an issue, no fact remotely suggesting any such infirmity in the present judgment appears here.

The order of the District Court upon the mandate of this court is

Affirmed.

1

. D.C.1954, 122 F.Supp. 253.

2

. 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 223 F.2d 316.

3

. 1955, 350 U.S. 844, 76 S.Ct. 85.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F.2d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-a-landell-of-e-a-landell-deceased-v-northern-pacific-railway-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack