Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William C. WHITE, Appellant, v. Ralph V. L. HARTLEY, Appellee, 1926 — 10 F.2d 904 · caselaw · US
General
William C. WHITE, Appellant, v. Ralph V. L. HARTLEY, Appellee
10 F.2d 904·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals. .
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William C. WHITE, Appellant, v. Ralph V. L. HARTLEY, Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 12, 1925.
Decided January 4, 1926.)
No. 1763.
A. D. Lunt and. H. E. Dunham, both of Schenectady, N. Y., and I. J. Adams, of New York City, for appellant. 0
P. T. Woodward, G. W. Rich, and J. W. Sehmied, all of New York City, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals. .
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
In this appeal the proofs are the same as in appeals Nos. 1761 and 1762, 10 F.(2d) 901. Por the reasons stated in our opinion in those two eases, the decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.