In Re Meyer & Judd

W.D. Tennessee

In Re Meyer & Judd

1 F.2d 513, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1011

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee

DecidedApril 22, 1924

Docket5157

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 1 F.2d 513 (In Re Meyer & Judd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Meyer & Judd, 1 F.2d 513, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1011 (W.D. Tenn. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, District Judge.

This case is before .the court on a petition to review the action of the referee, wherein questions presented by the" pleadings were determined by him. A very full and able- opinion has been filed herein by the referee, in which all the matters presented for consideration are fully discussed and are definitely decided.

A consideration of the record discloses that the questions of fact as found by the referee are well supported, and, being fully satisfied as to his conclusions thereon and his construction of the law, his opinion is adopted and .made the opinion of this court, and is in all things confirmed. While other authorities' might be-cited on the question of the right of interveners to maintain their petition on'-the ground that they have not complied with ,thó state statutes as 'to foreign corporations, reference is made to only the following as recent authorities: Maverick Mills v. Davis (D. C. Mass.) 294 Fed. 404; Fore River, etc., Corp’n v. Commonwealth (Mass.) 142 N. E. 812, decided February 29, 1924; Kansas City, etc., Co. v. State, 161 Ark. 483, 256 S. W. 845, decided December 10, 1923.

An order will be; entered in accordance with this opinion and the opinion , of the referee. ' • . .

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

ROSS, District Judge.

This case is before .the court on a petition to review the action of the referee, wherein questions presented by the" pleadings were determined by him. A very full and able- opinion has been filed herein by the referee, in which all the matters presented for consideration are fully discussed and are definitely decided.

A consideration of the record discloses that the questions of fact as found by the referee are well supported, and, being fully satisfied as to his conclusions thereon and his construction of the law, his opinion is adopted and .made the opinion of this court, and is in all things confirmed. While other authorities' might be-cited on the question of the right of interveners to maintain their petition on'-the ground that they have not complied with ,thó state statutes as 'to foreign corporations, reference is made to only the following as recent authorities: Maverick Mills v. Davis (D. C. Mass.) 294 Fed. 404; Fore River, etc., Corp’n v. Commonwealth (Mass.) 142 N. E. 812, decided February 29, 1924; Kansas City, etc., Co. v. State, 161 Ark. 483, 256 S. W. 845, decided December 10, 1923.

An order will be; entered in accordance with this opinion and the opinion , of the referee. ' • . .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F.2d 513, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-meyer-judd-tnwd-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack