Lockwood v. Rucker

D.C. Circuit

Lockwood v. Rucker

40 App. D.C. 422, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2094

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 1913

DocketNo. 2519

StatusPublished

This text of 40 App. D.C. 422 (Lockwood v. Rucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lockwood v. Rucker, 40 App. D.C. 422, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2094 (D.C. Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case was here before. 34 App. D. C. 376. The facts are substantially the same as set forth in our former opinion. The error upon which we reversed that judgment was not repeated in the present trial. Appellant was permitted to testify, perhaps more than was proper under the statute, in relation to the interview on which that case turned. We are of opinion that this evidence reduced the question of appellant’s liability to an issue of fact for the jury. The case was tried and submitted without prejudicial error, and resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee.

The judgment is- affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

A motion by the appellant for the allowance of a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States was denied May 26, 1913. The mandate was on motion of the appellant stayed pending a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for the writ of certiorari.

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

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case was here before. 34 App. D. C. 376. The facts are substantially the same as set forth in our former opinion. The error upon which we reversed that judgment was not repeated in the present trial. Appellant was permitted to testify, perhaps more than was proper under the statute, in relation to the interview on which that case turned. We are of opinion that this evidence reduced the question of appellant’s liability to an issue of fact for the jury. The case was tried and submitted without prejudicial error, and resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee.

The judgment is- affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

A motion by the appellant for the allowance of a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States was denied May 26, 1913. The mandate was on motion of the appellant stayed pending a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for the writ of certiorari.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 App. D.C. 422, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 2094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockwood-v-rucker-cadc-1913.