Marsh v. Cortis

First Circuit

Marsh v. Cortis

150 F. 121, 80 C.C.A. 75, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4095

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1907

DocketNo. 680

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 F. 121 (Marsh v. Cortis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marsh v. Cortis, 150 F. 121, 80 C.C.A. 75, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4095 (1st Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court is content with the conclusions reached by the Circuit Court and the reasons given therefor by the learned judge of that court. We may, however, properly refer to the well-known rules that, on a bill in equity of this class, the complainant cannot ordinarily maintain his case by his own testimony, or by mere preponderance of proofs, and that he cannot have relief unless he satisfies the court that he is entitled to it. This complainant fails in all these respects.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court is content with the conclusions reached by the Circuit Court and the reasons given therefor by the learned judge of that court. We may, however, properly refer to the well-known rules that, on a bill in equity of this class, the complainant cannot ordinarily maintain his case by his own testimony, or by mere preponderance of proofs, and that he cannot have relief unless he satisfies the court that he is entitled to it. This complainant fails in all these respects.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 F. 121, 80 C.C.A. 75, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-v-cortis-ca1-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack