Randle v. Abeel
88 F. 719, 32 C.C.A. 100, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2110
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 31, 1898
DocketNo. 665
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 88 F. 719 (Randle v. Abeel) 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
Randle v. Abeel, 88 F. 719, 32 C.C.A. 100, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2110 (5th Cir. 1898).
Opinion
The master’s report is very elaborate in findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the intervention of Randle and others. The master specifically finds as follows;
“I find that the special permission given by the railroad commission to-the Waco & Northwestern Railroad, upon the joint application of said railroad and the Texas Central Railroad, to refund, in addition to its own, also the charges of the Texas Central Railroad, was not mandatory, but simply permissive, and did not require said Waco & Northwestern to refund the whole of the concentration charges of said two railroads.”
This finding is correct, and disposes of the present appeal, rendering it unnecessary to consider other questions raised in the case. The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Mine & Smelter Supply Co. v. Stockgrowers' Bank
173 F. 859 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Clapp v. Otoe County
104 F. 473 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
88 F. 719, 32 C.C.A. 100, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randle-v-abeel-ca5-1898.