U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1906

Blankenship v. King

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 1, 1906 · Dayton, Goff, Pritchard

157 F. 676; 85 C.C.A. 348; 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4265

Counsel

E. M. Fulton and R. R. Henry (Ayers & Fulton, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error., Maynard F. Stiles-, -for defendant in error. ■ •

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

City of Orangeburg v. Southern Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 1943)
Huntington v. Dickinson (4th Cir. 1919)
Universal Transp. Co. v. National Surety Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1918)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The court below, in passing upon the questions involved in this writ of error, filed two opinions — the first on December 21, 1903, the. second on January 25, 1905 — which are reported in 137 Fed., at pages 198 and 222, respectively. All of the questions raised by the assignments of error were fully, considered in said opinions, and numerous pertinent authorities were cited therein. After a thorough examination of the record, and due consideration of the arguments of counsel, we find that the conclusions reached by the court below are sound. Concurring in said opinions, we find it unnecessary to' file another.

There being.no error in the judgment of the court below, the same is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.