Kindred v. Black

Eighth Circuit

Kindred v. Black

257 F. 302, 168 C.C.A. 386, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1919

DocketNo. 5240

StatusPublished

This text of 257 F. 302 (Kindred v. Black) 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

Kindred v. Black, 257 F. 302, 168 C.C.A. 386, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2204 (8th Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

CARLAND, Circuit Judge.

Black sued Kindred to recover damages for false representations in the sale of real estate. A jury being waived, the case whs tried to the court, with the result of a general finding for the plaintiff. There were no requests to find either generally or specially, or any requests to declare the law, made by Kindred. In this state of the record there is nothing for us to review, except errors in the exclusion or admission of evidence, and the error in this behalf specified and discussed in the brief has no merit. Section 700, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. § 1668); Keely v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598; Mason v. United States, 135 C. C. A. 315, 219 Fed. 547.

Judgment affirmed.

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

CARLAND, Circuit Judge.

Black sued Kindred to recover damages for false representations in the sale of real estate. A jury being waived, the case whs tried to the court, with the result of a general finding for the plaintiff. There were no requests to find either generally or specially, or any requests to declare the law, made by Kindred. In this state of the record there is nothing for us to review, except errors in the exclusion or admission of evidence, and the error in this behalf specified and discussed in the brief has no merit. Section 700, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. § 1668); Keely v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598; Mason v. United States, 135 C. C. A. 315, 219 Fed. 547.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 F. 302, 168 C.C.A. 386, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kindred-v-black-ca8-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack