Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

289 F.2d 311

Docket No. 14279.

George O. Baird, Jr. v. Mark v. Marlowe

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-04-21

2 counsel of record

Relies on Weeks v. Ross Concrete & Mortar, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-04-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1986

4 federal appellate ·

30196119701980decided

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 →

Walter C. Cox, Jr., of Fowler, Rouse, Measle & Bell, Lexington, Ky., for appellant.

B. L. Kessinger, Jr., of Harbison, Kessinger, Lisle & Bush, Lexington, Ky., for appellee, Nathan Elliott, Jr., Lexington, Ky., on the brief.

Before MARTIN, CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This action for damages was brought by Baird against Marlowe for breach of contract relating to the operation of an oil-and-gas-lease business. There was a jury trial, at which the case was submitted to the jury upon interrogatories. These were answered by the jury favorably to the contention of the plaintiff-appellee.

¶2

The jury found that the appellee, Baird, had completed and performed the duties incumbent upon him as required by the contract. As a result of the jury's findings, the United States District Court entered judgment in favor of the appellee for the total sum of $14,192.60, constituting $10,000 due for services rendered pursuant to the contract and the balance of the judgment being for interest and expenses.

¶3

The court dismissed a counter-claim of the defendant Marlowe against plaintiff Baird.

¶4

Upon review of the record, we find the answers of the jury to the interrogatories to be supported by substantial evidence; and that the trial judge, Honorable H. Church Ford, properly applied the pertinent law and committed no prejudicial error in the trial of the case.

¶5

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

/289/f2d/311 · .json · Public domain