Williams v. Friedrichs

Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Friedrichs

204 F. 1007, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1385

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 12, 1913·No. No. 2,452·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tn the light of the pleadings and evidence, the result reached in this ease was correct and proper, and, as the ease shows in the alleged contract sued on the bankrupt, Brown, while bargaining with the vendor for a share of the profits to result from the proposed and probable sale and purchase, was representing and interested with the purchasers, we find no prejudicial error -in the charge of the court referred to in the fourth assignment of error. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tn the light of the pleadings and evidence, the result reached in this ease was correct and proper, and, as the ease shows in the alleged contract sued on the bankrupt, Brown, while bargaining with the vendor for a share of the profits to result from the proposed and probable sale and purchase, was representing and interested with the purchasers, we find no prejudicial error -in the charge of the court referred to in the fourth assignment of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Williams v. Friedrichs, 204 F. 1007, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1385 (5th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

204 F. 1007 (Williams v. Friedrichs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.