Gray v. New York Nat. Building & Loan Ass'n

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Gray v. New York Nat. Building & Loan Ass'n

125 F. 512, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 22, 1903

DocketNo. 994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 F. 512 (Gray v. New York Nat. Building & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gray v. New York Nat. Building & Loan Ass'n, 125 F. 512, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103 (circtdct 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, District Judge.

At the oral hearing on October i6th disposition was made of all questions which arose, aside from the exceptions of George E. Hall filed August io, 1903. He therein excepts to the third finding of facts, and quotes certain testimony taken before the master in support of his exception. I think it is too late now to make such an exception. He should have complained to the master if he felt that he was injured by the omission of any fact. I am bound to accept the report as conclusive on the essential facts. The exception is overruled.

The claimant then excepts to the first and second conclusions of law. The .first refers to his claim for services in the Sullivan loan, the second to his claim for services and disbursements in the case of Sughrue v. Hall. The trouble with the claimant’s contention is that under both exceptions he is practically endeavoring to force upon the court conclusions of fact which the master with great care avoided. The argument to me was a very proper one to have made on the trial before the master, and I have no doubt that it was made with vigor. It is beyond my power, however, to change the facts, and upon those facts the master’s interpretation of the law is unassailable.

The exceptions are overruled.

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

PRATT, District Judge.

At the oral hearing on October i6th disposition was made of all questions which arose, aside from the exceptions of George E. Hall filed August io, 1903. He therein excepts to the third finding of facts, and quotes certain testimony taken before the master in support of his exception. I think it is too late now to make such an exception. He should have complained to the master if he felt that he was injured by the omission of any fact. I am bound to accept the report as conclusive on the essential facts. The exception is overruled.

The claimant then excepts to the first and second conclusions of law. The .first refers to his claim for services in the Sullivan loan, the second to his claim for services and disbursements in the case of Sughrue v. Hall. The trouble with the claimant’s contention is that under both exceptions he is practically endeavoring to force upon the court conclusions of fact which the master with great care avoided. The argument to me was a very proper one to have made on the trial before the master, and I have no doubt that it was made with vigor. It is beyond my power, however, to change the facts, and upon those facts the master’s interpretation of the law is unassailable.

The exceptions are overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F. 512, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-new-york-nat-building-loan-assn-circtdct-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack