The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 1,022
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1022 250 FEDERAL REPORTER
THE RIVER MEANDER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April
10, 1918.) No. 204. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for
the Southern District of New York. Libel by the P. Lorillard Company
against the steamship River Meander, her engines, etc., claimed by Norton &
Sons, together with four other consolidated cases. There were decrees for
libelants (209 Fed. 931), and claimant appeals. Affllrmed. Kirlin, Woolsey &
Hickox, of New York City (J. Parker Kirlin, John M. Woolsey, and Harry D.
Thirkield, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Harrington, Big-
ham & Englar, of New York City (D. Roger Englar, of New York City, of
counsel), for appellee. Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Decree (209 Fed. 931) affirmed.
SIEGEL v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit. February 28, 1918.) No. 2528. In Error to the District Court of
the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of
Illinois. Action by Kate Siegel against the Southern Pacific Company. There
was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. Samuel
B. King, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error. John A. Sheean, of Chicago,
Ill., for defendant in error. Before BAKER, KOHLSAAT, and ALSCHULER,
PER CURIAM. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for
defendant. This was right, first, because the record failed to establish or
warrant an inference of negligence of defendant, and, second, because the
alleged negligence is not shown to. be the proximate cause of the injury. Af-
STELLWAGEN v. CLUM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March
15, 1918.) No. 244& Appeal from the District Court of the United States for
the Northern District of Ohio. Petition by A. C. Stellhvagen, trustee for Mar-
garet Zengerle, for an order requiring the surrender of property by Alfred
Clum, trustee in bankruptcy of the Georgian Bay Company. From a decree
dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Decree affirmed, in conformity to
answers of the Supreme Court to questions certified (245 U. S. 605, 38 Sup.
Ct. 215, 62 I. Ed. -).
PER CURIAM. This cause coming on to be heard on the transcript of the
record from the court below, two of the questions presented by the record and
argued by counsel were in substance: (a) Whether the Bankruptcy Act of the
United States, in force on the dates of the transactions in issue, operated to
suspend section 6343 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, as such section stood
February 2, 1910; and (b) whether the Bankruptcy Act operated to suspend
the sections into which section 6343 was divided and numbered February 15,
1910, by the General Code of Ohio, to wit, sections 11102, 11103, 11104, and
11105, as such sections existed May 5, 1910. The court, finding itself unable
to reach a satisfactory conclusion as to the claimed suspension, entered an
order November 7, 1914, certifying the foregoing questions to the Supreme
Court for its instructions thereon. On February 4, 1918, the Supreme Court
announced an opinion (245 U. S. 605, 38 Sup. Ct. 215, 62 L. Ed. -) in the
cause that the foregoing questions so certified "must be Pnswered in the nega-
tive," and on March 9, 1918, the mandate of that court in the cause was filed
in this court. On consideration whereof, and for reasons expressed in the
opinion of this court November 7, 1914 (218 Fed. 730, 732, 733, 134 C. C. A.
408), it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree
of the court below affirming the order of the referee, be and the same hereby
is affirmed, with costs; and it is further ordered that for purposes of rehear-
ing under and according to rule 28 of this court (202 Fed. xix) the date of
the filing of this decree shall be treated as the date of the filing of the
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/1037/: accessed February 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.