Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

289 F. 224

Docket No. 4028.

Fouke v. Hindman

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 27, 1923.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1923-04-27

<p>In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi ; William B. Sheppard, Judge.</p> <p>Action by S. H. Hindman against C. W. Fouke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1923-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1955

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

101923193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi ; William B. Sheppard, Judge.

¶2Action by S. H. Hindman against C. W. Fouke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

¶3Affirmed.

¶4Ben F. Cameron and A. S. Bozeman, both of Meridian, Miss., and Stone Deavours, of Laurel, Miss. (Henry Hilbun, of Laurel, Miss., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

¶5Robert L. Bullard, of Hattiesburg, Miss., for defendant in error.

¶6Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit-Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8The parties to this suit for. several years had been . jointly interested as stockholders in the George W. Fouke Lumber Company, a corporation, in Texas, and in a partnership of the same name in Mississippi. In 1921 Fouke, the defendant, was desirous of selling the partnership property to a corporation in which he was to become interested as a stockholder. Hindman, the plaintiff, objected to the sale, but finally agreed to it upon condition that Fouke would pay to him the amount shown by their books of account to be due to him by both the corporation and the partnership. Fouke agreed, to these terms of settlement, and thereupon Hindman joined him in the sale of the property belonging to the partnership in Mississippi. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

¶9The assignments of error are based solely upon the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. No exception to any ruling is presented, and no objection was made to any of the evidence, which as a whole appears to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.

¶10The judgment is affirmed.

/289/f1d/224 · .json · Public domain