Leapley v. Matthews
50 F.2d 1016, 60 App. D.C. 251, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4633
Opinion
The only error assigned to which exception was taken in the court below is the third: “The Court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, because the finding of fact is contrary to the evidence, the weight of the evidence and the law.”
“According to federal practice this is not assignable as error.” Whelan v. Welch, 50 App. D. C. 174, 269 F. 689, 690, and eases cited; Preleau v. U. S., 50 App. D. C. 287, 271 F. 361; Hill v. U. S., 22 App. D. C. 396.
The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leapley v. Matthews, 50 F.2d 1016, 60 App. D.C. 251, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4633 (D.C. Cir. 1931).
50 F.2d 1016 (Leapley v. Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hamilton v. United States
31 A.2d 887 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1943)