Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co.

Second Circuit

Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co.

227 F. 1019, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2399

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1915

DocketNos. 295, 296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 F. 1019 (Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co., 227 F. 1019, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2399 (2d Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A libel and cross-libel were filed in the District Court. These together constitute but one cause. The District Judge directed that the cross-libel be dismissed and that the original libelant recover some $4,000 against the cross-libelant. Instead of entering one decree, as the proper practice is, separate decrees were entered, and the cross-libelant appealed from, each. The two claims were tried together in the District Court as one cause. But one record was printed on appeal and but one argument had in this court. The appellant having succeeded very substantially in this court, viz., having reversed the decree against it, waa given a full bill of costs, and we still think it was entitled thereto.

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

PER CURIAM.

A libel and cross-libel were filed in the District Court. These together constitute but one cause. The District Judge directed that the cross-libel be dismissed and that the original libelant recover some $4,000 against the cross-libelant. Instead of entering one decree, as the proper practice is, separate decrees were entered, and the cross-libelant appealed from, each. The two claims were tried together in the District Court as one cause. But one record was printed on appeal and but one argument had in this court. The appellant having succeeded very substantially in this court, viz., having reversed the decree against it, waa given a full bill of costs, and we still think it was entitled thereto.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F. 1019, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehigh-wilkes-barre-coal-co-v-hartford-n-y-transp-co-ca2-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack