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.
Raymond O. SMITH, Libelant Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al., Respondents-Appellees, 1927 — 18 F.2d 111 · caselaw · US
General
Raymond O. SMITH, Libelant Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al., Respondents-Appellees
18 F.2d 111·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1927
Before HOUGH, HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
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
Raymond O. SMITH, Libelant Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al., Respondents-Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 21, 1927.)
No. 155.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Austin & Abruzzo, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Vine H. Smith, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
E. C. Sherwood, of New York City (William L. O’Brion, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Brady & Gioe.
Emory it. Buckner, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Walker Schaffner, Sp. Asst. U. S; Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for other appellees.
Before HOUGH, HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree (18 F.[2d] 110) affirmed, without costs, under The Saratoga (C. C. A.) 94 F. 221, and Hardie v. New York, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 545.