Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 F.2d 982

Docket No. 2436.

Noirmot v. Rosemary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 23, 1925.)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1925-11-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1943

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1925-11-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Cross-Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk; Edmund Waddill, Judge.

¶2For opinion in court below, see 9 F.(2d) .980.

¶3Jacob Louis Morewitz, of Newport News, Va., for appellants and cross-appellees.

¶4John V. Groner, of Norfolk, Va. (Groner & Gary, of Norfolk, Va., S. L. Sinnott, of Richmond, Va., and Barham R. Gary, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees and cross-appellants.

¶5Before ROSE and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7We have considered the testimony and the oral and printed arguments. We are satisfied that the amount awarded by the deeree helow to the libelant Noirmot is ample to cover all claims he has against the respondents or either of them. We are not prepared to say it is excessive. We believe that the learned court below was right in holding that the other libelants had failed to establish any ground for recovery.

¶8Affirmed.

/9/f2d/982 · .json · Public domain