Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

194 F. 1020

Docket No. 2,233.

Blount v. Downs

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 9, 1912.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1912-04-09

<p>In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Thompson v. Maxwell Landgrant Railway Co · Allore v. Jewell · Supervisors v. Kennicott

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1912-04-09

¶1In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.

¶2George C. Greer (Greer & Minor, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

¶3Will E. Orgain and Chas. T. Butler.(Hightower, Or'gain & Butler and Baker, Potts, Parker & Garwood, on the brief), for defendant in error.

¶4Before PARDEE and SHELBY', Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The questions presented on this writ of error are substantially the same as on the former writ between the same parties in the same *1021case, and on consideration we find no sufficient reason to change our ruling and conclusion on the former writ, as reported in Downs v. Blount, 170 Fed. 15, 95 C. C. A. 289, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1076. As to the re-examination on a subsequent writ of error of questions decided under former writ, see Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498, 24 L. Ed. 260; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464, 1 Sup. Ct. 568, 27 L. Ed. 302; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567, 6 Sup. Ct. 518. 29 L. Ed. 727: Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 144 U. S. 451, 456, 18 Sup. Ct. 121, 42 L. Ed. 539. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed

/194/f1d/1020 · .json · Public domain