Seymour v. White County

Seventh Circuit

Seymour v. White County

74 F. 207, 20 C.C.A. 402, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1909

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1896

DocketNo. 153

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 F. 207 (Seymour v. White County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seymour v. White County, 74 F. 207, 20 C.C.A. 402, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1909 (7th Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

This is an action of assumpsit on bonds made by the county of White, Ill., bearing date December 2, 1872, and purporting to have been made in part payment of a sub.-'cription to the capital stock of the Cairo & Vincennes Railroad Company. Issue having been joined by a plea of non assumpsit, a jury was waived by written agreement, and the case submitted for trial to the court, which, upon the evidence adduced, made a. general finding and gave judgment for the defendant: No exception was saved to any ruling or action of the court, other than the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the entry of judgment on the finding for the defendant in error. The specifications of error correspond in all respects with those in the case of Woodbury v. City of Shawneetown, 74 Fed. 205, and, for the reasons there pointed out, present no question for review. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

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

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

This is an action of assumpsit on bonds made by the county of White, Ill., bearing date December 2, 1872, and purporting to have been made in part payment of a sub.-'cription to the capital stock of the Cairo & Vincennes Railroad Company. Issue having been joined by a plea of non assumpsit, a jury was waived by written agreement, and the case submitted for trial to the court, which, upon the evidence adduced, made a. general finding and gave judgment for the defendant: No exception was saved to any ruling or action of the court, other than the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the entry of judgment on the finding for the defendant in error. The specifications of error correspond in all respects with those in the case of Woodbury v. City of Shawneetown, 74 Fed. 205, and, for the reasons there pointed out, present no question for review. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F. 207, 20 C.C.A. 402, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seymour-v-white-county-ca7-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack