L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co.

Sixth Circuit

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co.

222 F. 1023, 137 C.C.A. 666, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 202 F. 167 →

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided May 14, 1915·No. No. 2615·Published

Opinion

PUR CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel; and the appellant having, in our view of the present record, failed to show that appellee Teller was an officer, agent, servant, or employe' of the Standard Drug Company, or was otherwise so identified with the company as to justify the conclusion that he was under its control, at any of the times in question herein, the decree below will have to be affirmed, as it hereby is, with costs.

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

PUR CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel; and the appellant having, in our view of the present record, failed to show that appellee Teller was an officer, agent, servant, or employe' of the Standard Drug Company, or was otherwise so identified with the company as to justify the conclusion that he was under its control, at any of the times in question herein, the decree below will have to be affirmed, as it hereby is, with costs.

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co., 222 F. 1023, 137 C.C.A. 666, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525 (6th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

222 F. 1023 (L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.