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.
Allie STEWART, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT & GAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee, 1934 — 71 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Allie STEWART, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT & GAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee
71 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
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
Allie STEWART, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT & GAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.
No. 3637.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
June 28, 1934.
W. T. Lovins, of Huntington, W. Va., for appellant.
Harold A. Ritz, of Charleston, W. Va., W. C. W. Renshaw, of Huntington, W. Va., and B. J. Pettigrew, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This aetion of ejectment involves the ownership of the minerals underlying a thirty-one acre tract of land situate in Lincoln county, W. Va. Upon the conclusion of all the testimony, the court • below directed a verdict in favor of the appellee and from the judgment entered on the verdict the appellant prosecutes this appeal. The ease tas been before this court on two former occasions. 44 F.(2d) 119, rehearing denied in 46 F.(2d) 462, and 54 F.(2d) 1068. On this, the third, trial, the evidence was the same as on the second trial, with, as stated by the judge below, “some slight exceptions.” No evidence was offered that would cause us to change the conclusions reached in our former opinions.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.