Hull v. Chaffin

54 F. 437, 4 C.C.A. 414, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1461
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1893
DocketNo. 168
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 F. 437 (Hull v. Chaffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hull v. Chaffin, 54 F. 437, 4 C.C.A. 414, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1461 (8th Cir. 1893).

Opinion

SHIRAS, District Judge,

(after stating the facts.) The questions at issue between the parties to this suit have been very fully and [439]*439ably presented by counsel in the briefs and arguments before this court, and, with the assistance thus afforded us, we have considered the several errors assigned on behalf of appellants, but we find therein no sufficient ground for reversing the decree appealed from. We concur in the views expressed by the circuit court of the facts and the law applicable to the case, and these are so clearly and aptly stated in the opinion filed in that court, and reported in 49 Fed. Rep. 524, that we deem it unnecessary to enter upon a restatement thereof. Affirmed.

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

Related

Village of Brookfield v. Pentis
101 F.2d 516 (Seventh Circuit, 1939)
Heald v. Michigan Trust Co.
264 N.W. 351 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Page v. Town of Gallup
191 P. 460 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 F. 437, 4 C.C.A. 414, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 1461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-chaffin-ca8-1893.