Reitzer v. Medina Valley Irr. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Reitzer v. Medina Valley Irr. Co.

237 F. 1020, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 1916

DocketNo. 2980

StatusPublished

This text of 237 F. 1020 (Reitzer v. Medina Valley Irr. 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

Reitzer v. Medina Valley Irr. Co., 237 F. 1020, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036 (5th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By uncontradieted evidence, admitted on the trial without objection, it was shown that the defendants had estopped themselves to deny the right of the plaintiff to acquire the land in question by condemnation. This fact renders unavailable many of the assignments of error which have been insisted 'on in argument. Our examination of the record in the light of the arguments and briefs has led us to the conclusion that it does not show that any reversible error was committed. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By uncontradieted evidence, admitted on the trial without objection, it was shown that the defendants had estopped themselves to deny the right of the plaintiff to acquire the land in question by condemnation. This fact renders unavailable many of the assignments of error which have been insisted 'on in argument. Our examination of the record in the light of the arguments and briefs has led us to the conclusion that it does not show that any reversible error was committed. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F. 1020, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reitzer-v-medina-valley-irr-co-ca5-1916.