McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co.

Fifth Circuit

McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co.

140 F. 987, 72 C.C.A. 681, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3977

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 30, 1905·No. No. 1,512·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

140 F. 987 (McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related