In re Duncan

Fourth Circuit

In re Duncan

249 F. 155, 161 C.C.A. 207, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 1918

DocketNo. 1609

StatusPublished

This text of 249 F. 155 (In re Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Duncan, 249 F. 155, 161 C.C.A. 207, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182 (4th Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge.

In the above-entitled matter Cloyd II. Duncan, complainant in the court below, presents a petition in which he states that his attorney is not a member of the bar of this court. The petitioner seeks to have this court issue an alternative writ of mandamus, directing the District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia to correct alleged errors at law in the trial of a cause. The questions which petitioner seeks to have us pass upon can be considered by this court if the cause should be brought here on appeal, provided such questions are raised by a proper assignment of error.

No ground is stated for interfering with the District Judge in the discharge o f his duties upon the showing made. Therefore the application for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

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

PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge.

In the above-entitled matter Cloyd II. Duncan, complainant in the court below, presents a petition in which he states that his attorney is not a member of the bar of this court. The petitioner seeks to have this court issue an alternative writ of mandamus, directing the District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia to correct alleged errors at law in the trial of a cause. The questions which petitioner seeks to have us pass upon can be considered by this court if the cause should be brought here on appeal, provided such questions are raised by a proper assignment of error.

No ground is stated for interfering with the District Judge in the discharge o f his duties upon the showing made. Therefore the application for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F. 155, 161 C.C.A. 207, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-duncan-ca4-1918.