Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 F. 1005

Docket Nos. 702-719.

United States v. Stapleton

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided January 3, 1899.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1899-01-03

<p>Errors to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. These were suits brought against the United States to recover compensation for extra time over eight hours per day served by plaintiffs as letter carriers. There was a judgment for plaintiff in each case, and the United States brings error. The suits were 18 in number, and brought by the following named plaintiffs: George W. Stapleton, Matthew L. Fowlks, Thomas M. Edwards, John T. Dillon, Charles A. Merritt, Charles W. Burney, Walter E. Douglass, Emanuel J. Lowenstein, Charles A. Buff, William C. Cunningham, Charles W. Lowry, Hampton S. Jones, Rufus G. Smith. George S. Martin, James D. Bell, Benjamin J. Puckett, Richard II. English, and Alfred B. Jackson.</p>

Relies on United States v. McCrory

Opinion by Don Albert Pardee · Decided 1899-01-03

¶1Errors to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. These were suits brought against the United States to recover compensation for extra time over eight hours per day served by plaintiffs as letter carriers. There was a judgment for plaintiff in each case, and the United States brings error. The suits were 18 in number, and brought by the following named plaintiffs: George W. Stapleton, Matthew L. Fowlks, Thomas M. Edwards, John T. Dillon, Charles A. Merritt, Charles W. Burney, Walter E. Douglass, Emanuel J. Lowenstein, Charles A. Buff, William C. Cunningham, Charles W. Lowry, Hampton S. Jones, Rufus G. Smith. George S. Martin, James D. Bell, Benjamin J. Puckett, Richard II. English, and Alfred B. Jackson.

¶2Before PARDEE, Circuit Judge, and SWAYNE and PARLANCE, District Judges.

¶3PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

¶4These cases are similar In all respects to U. S. v. McCrory (just decided) 91 Fed. 295. For the reasons therein given, the writs of error in the above-entitled eases are abated; no mandate to issue, but the clerk may certify judgment.

/91/f1d/1005 · .json · Public domain