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.
C. LEVENSALER, A. J. Ames, W. D. Sheldon, Partners Doing Business as W. D. Sheldon & Co., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION, Appellee, 1924 — 1 F.2d 1021 · caselaw · US
Corporations
C. LEVENSALER, A. J. Ames, W. D. Sheldon, Partners Doing Business as W. D. Sheldon & Co., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION, Appellee
1 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1924
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
C. LEVENSALER, A. J. Ames, W. D. Sheldon, Partners Doing Business as W. D. Sheldon & Co., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION, Appellee.*
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted October 13, 1924,
Decided November 3, 1924.)
No. 4080.
Spencer Gordon, of Washington, D. G., for appellants. Peyton Gordon, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case was here on a former appeal (United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Levensaler et al., 290 F 297, 53 App. D. C. 322), in which the judgment of the court below was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Certain amendments to the declaration, suggested in the opinion of this court, were made in the court below, and judgment entered upon 1he mandate of this court. From that judgment this appeal was taken. Nothing is here presented which calls for a review or modification of our for-mer opinion. The judgment, therefore, is affirmed with costs. Motion for^ stay of mandate, pending application for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, granted November 10, 1924.
Certiorari denied 45 S. Ct. 195, 69 L. Ed. —.