Hunt v. Howes

74 F. 1008, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2006
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 14, 1896
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F. 1008 (Hunt v. Howes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunt v. Howes, 74 F. 1008, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2006 (5th Cir. 1896).

Opinion

BOARMAN, District Judge

(dissenting). The' two opinions already filed in 1his cause are so extended that I do not care to elaborate my views. I dissent .from the original decision of the court, the opinion filed therein, and the opinion filed in the application for rehearing. The fact is the defect in jurisdiction was not discovered by or known to the parties, their counsel, or the judge of the court below. It was only discovered after the cause had been brought to this court by new counsel employed in this city by plaintiff in, error, who suggested the matter of jurisdiction to the court, without which, perhaps, the defect would not have been discovered even in this court.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F. 1008, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-howes-ca5-1896.