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.
LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Marguerite WOODSMALL, now Marguerite Burrows, a Minor, etc., 1924 — 5 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
General
LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Marguerite WOODSMALL, now Marguerite Burrows, a Minor, etc.
5 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·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
LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Marguerite WOODSMALL, now Marguerite Burrows, a Minor, etc.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
December 22, 1924.)
No. 6756.
In Error to the-District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
M. F. Watts, William R. Gentry, and Robert A. Holland, Jr., all of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Percy Werner, T. W. Strubinger, and James T. Strubinger, all of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Reversed, with costs, and remanded, with directions to grant a new trial, per stipulation of parties.