Osterman v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.

Ninth Circuit

Osterman v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.

230 F. 1023, 144 C.C.A. 664

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 28, 1916·No. No. 2767·Published

Opinion

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Montana. L. O. Evans, of Kulte, Mont., W. B. Rodgers, of Anaconda, Mont., and D. Gay Stivers, of Butte, Mont., for defendant in error. On motion of counsel for defendant in error, writ of error dismissed for the noneompliance by the plaintiff in error with the pro visions.of subdivision 1 of rule 16 of the rules of practice of this court (150 Fed. xxix, 79 C. C. A. xxix); the plaintiff in error having foiled to file a record thereof and to docket the case by or before the return day required by said rule.

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

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Montana. L. O. Evans, of Kulte, Mont., W. B. Rodgers, of Anaconda, Mont., and D. Gay Stivers, of Butte, Mont., for defendant in error. On motion of counsel for defendant in error, writ of error dismissed for the noneompliance by the plaintiff in error with the pro visions.of subdivision 1 of rule 16 of the rules of practice of this court (150 Fed. xxix, 79 C. C. A. xxix); the plaintiff in error having foiled to file a record thereof and to docket the case by or before the return day required by said rule.

Osterman v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 230 F. 1023, 144 C.C.A. 664 (9th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

230 F. 1023 (Osterman v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.