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.
O. B. MOTHERSEAD, Bank Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellee, 1927 — 22 F.2d 654 · caselaw · US
Corporations
O. B. MOTHERSEAD, Bank Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellee
22 F.2d 654·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
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
O. B. MOTHERSEAD, Bank Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 28, 1927.
No. 7397.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; John H. Cotteral, Judge.
M. W. McKenzie and Gentry Lee, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
J. S. Ross, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (H. C. Thurman, S. J. Clay, and Ross & Thurman, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BOOTH, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER1 and PHILLIPS, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — PHILLIPS, District Judge.]
PHILLIPS, District Judge.
In the case of Mothersead v. United States F. & G. Co. (No. 7400, opinion filed October 28, 1927) 22 F.(2d) 644, all of the questions presented on this appeal, on a state of facts substantially the same as the facts in this case, were considered by this court, and determined adversely to the contentions of the appellant here.
On the authority of that case the decree appealed from is affirmed.