Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

261 F. 48

Docket No. 5343.

Howe v. Gillespie

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided September 22, 1919.)

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1919-09-22

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by E. N. Gillespie against R. F. Howe. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1959

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Washburn v. Gillespie · Wright v. Gillespie

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Opinion by Kimbrough Stone · Decided 1919-09-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge.

¶2Suit by E. N. Gillespie against R. F. Howe. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.

¶3Affirmed.

¶4John B. Arnold, of New York City, and P. W. Cress, of Perry, Okl., for appellant.

¶5Robert J. Dodds, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and C. B. Ames, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (W. A. Sipe, Jr., of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

¶6Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.

¶7STONE, Circuit Judge.

¶8This is another of the cases tried with Washburn v. Gillespie, 261 Fed. 41,-C. C. A.-, determined at this term. The contentions are the same, except that this appellant claims that his lease was to be the same as that given by Frank Wright and involved in Frank Wright v. E. N. Gillespie, 261 Fed. 46,-C. C. A. -, also decided at this term. The trial court found against this claim, and a thorough examination of the evidence reveals no substantial reason for disturbing that conclusion.

¶9The decree is affirmed.

/261/f1d/48 · .json · Public domain