McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co.

140 F. 987, 72 C.C.A. 681, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3977
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 1905
DocketNo. 1,512
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 F. 987 (McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co., 140 F. 987, 72 C.C.A. 681, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3977 (5th Cir. 1905).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Without examining this case now as to its merits, the court has concluded that it is not advisable or proper to interfere with the discretion of the trial court in the granting of the temporary injunction. Adhering to the construction we have heretofore given the act allowing appeals in such cases, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. Lehman v. Graham, 135 Fed. 39, 67 C. C. A. 513; Railroad Comm. v. Rosenbaum, 130 Fed. 110, 64 C. C. A. 444; Kerr v. New Orleans, 126 Fed. 920, 61 C. C. A. 450; Massie v. Buck, 128 Fed. 27, 62 C. C. A. 535.

On Petition for Rehearing.

The judges who concurred in our former decree are still satisfied therewith, and the petition for rehearing is denied.

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

Related

Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries Co.
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Legg v. Hood
113 S.E. 642 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 F. 987, 72 C.C.A. 681, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconnell-v-camors-mcconnell-co-ca5-1905.