Harry H. Oshrin v. Emma B. Underwood

Fifth Circuit

Harry H. Oshrin v. Emma B. Underwood

296 F.2d 733, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 2898

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 21, 1961·No. 18938·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Court has carefully studied the record and briefs in this case. We hold that the district court did not err in refusing to find for the appellant on the theory of a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. We affirm too the dis *734 trict court’s holding that the evidence offered by the plaintiff-appellant to show damages was insufficient to support any tenable theory of recovery.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Court has carefully studied the record and briefs in this case. We hold that the district court did not err in refusing to find for the appellant on the theory of a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. We affirm too the dis *734 trict court’s holding that the evidence offered by the plaintiff-appellant to show damages was insufficient to support any tenable theory of recovery.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Harry H. Oshrin v. Emma B. Underwood, 296 F.2d 733, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 2898 (5th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

296 F.2d 733 (Harry H. Oshrin v. Emma B. Underwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.