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.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alma HUNTER, a Widow, Defendant in Error, 1926 — 10 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
General
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alma HUNTER, a Widow, Defendant in Error
10 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1926
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, 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
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alma HUNTER, a Widow, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 23, 1926.)
No. 4516.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; Lake Jones, Judge.
For opinion below, see 2 F.(2d) 266.
A. G. Turner and John B. Sutton, both of Tampa, Fla. (Francis R. Stark, of New York City, and Peter O. Knight, C. Fred Thompson, A. G. Turner, and Kelly & Sutton, all of Tampa, Fla., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
S. S. Sandford, of Tampa, Fla., and Fred J. Hampton, of Gainesville, Fla., for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff in error complains of instructions given by the court to the jury on the question of the measure of damages. Those instructions were not excepted to. What is relied on for a reversal is not properly presented for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
End op Cases in Yon. 10 F.(2d)
/