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.
ARMOUR & CO. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 1927 — 21 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
General
ARMOUR & CO. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK
21 F.2d 1010·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
ARMOUR & CO. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
September 5, 1927.
No. 7809.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Wyoming.
A. C. Allen, of Riverton, Wyo., Joseph C. O’Mahoney, of Cheyenne, Wyo., and M. C. Burk,, of Riverton, Wyo., for plaintiffs in error.
Roderick N. Matson and Clarence A. Swainson, both of Cheyenne, Wyo., for. defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Motion of plaintiffs in error for continuance denied, and writ of error dismissed on motion of defendant in error, under rules 23 and 24.