United States v. John Williams

Seventh Circuit

United States v. John Williams

219 F.2d 110, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2884

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1955

Docket10972_1

StatusPublished

This text of 219 F.2d 110 (United States v. John Williams) 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

United States v. John Williams, 219 F.2d 110, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2884 (7th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

Alice Williams and John Williams, parties defendant in a complaint filed March 17, 1950, by the United States under Section 206 Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1891 et seq., filed an answer by their attorneys Loehtan and Wolfe. By leave of the trial court, granted February 25, 1952, these attorneys withdrew their appearances for both defendants. A stipulation, dated June 19, 1952, executed by different at *111 torneys on behalf of these defendants was thereafter filed below. This stipulation waived findings of fact and conclusions of law, providing further that both Williams’ “Agree and consent to the entry of Judgment * * Judgment was then entered on the stipulation, June 20, 1952. After a petition for civil contempt was filed, attorneys Lochtan and Wolfe reappeared; moved for equitable relief and modification of the decree entered pursuant to the stipulation of substituted counsel.

Relief was rightly denied by the same district judge who entered the basic decree “pursuant to the stipulation of the parties * * * ” See: Hot Springs Coal Co. v. Miller, 10 Cir., 1939, 107 F.2d 677.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

SWAIM, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

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

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

Alice Williams and John Williams, parties defendant in a complaint filed March 17, 1950, by the United States under Section 206 Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1891 et seq., filed an answer by their attorneys Loehtan and Wolfe. By leave of the trial court, granted February 25, 1952, these attorneys withdrew their appearances for both defendants. A stipulation, dated June 19, 1952, executed by different at *111 torneys on behalf of these defendants was thereafter filed below. This stipulation waived findings of fact and conclusions of law, providing further that both Williams’ “Agree and consent to the entry of Judgment * * Judgment was then entered on the stipulation, June 20, 1952. After a petition for civil contempt was filed, attorneys Lochtan and Wolfe reappeared; moved for equitable relief and modification of the decree entered pursuant to the stipulation of substituted counsel.

Relief was rightly denied by the same district judge who entered the basic decree “pursuant to the stipulation of the parties * * * ” See: Hot Springs Coal Co. v. Miller, 10 Cir., 1939, 107 F.2d 677.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

SWAIM, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 110, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-williams-ca7-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack