Princess Furnace Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
218 F. 68, 134 C.C.A. 20, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1514
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Princess Furnace Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 215 F. 329 →
Opinion
We are constrained to deny the petition for a rehearing in this case on the ground that the plaintiff in error was not [69]*69prejudiced by the inclusion of interest in the directed verdict, because we are of opinion that the trial court might properly have directed a verdict for the full amount of the stipulated damages named in the contract on which this suit was brought. See Sun, etc., Association v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642, 22 Sup. Ct. 240, 46 L. Ed. 366.
Petition denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Princess Furnace Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 218 F. 68, 134 C.C.A. 20, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1514 (4th Cir. 1914).
218 F. 68 (Princess Furnace Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sun Printing and Publishing Assn. v. Moore
183 U.S. 642 (Supreme Court, 1902)