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.
George MORGAN, Appellant, v. EASTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a Corporation, and J. P. Savage, Appellees, 1929 — 31 F.2d 332 · caselaw · US
Corporations
George MORGAN, Appellant, v. EASTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a Corporation, and J. P. Savage, Appellees
31 F.2d 332·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1929
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and COLEMAN, District Judge.
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
George MORGAN, Appellant, v. EASTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a Corporation, and J. P. Savage, Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
January 14, 1929.
No. 2761.
J. L. Morewitz, of Newport News, Va. (Jesse L. Rosenberg, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
George M. Lanning, of Norfolk, Va. (Baird, White & Lanning, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and COLEMAN, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We have carefully considered all of the questions raised by appellant, and we agree with the conclusions reached by the learned District Judge. It is not necessary that we again discuss the questions which he has so fully covered in his opinion. We do not think that libelant has established a ease entitling him to recover for maintenance and cure, nor do we think that there has been a refusal or neglect without sufficient cause to pay him wages due so - as to entitle him to recover double wages under section 4529 of the Revised Statutes (46 USCA § 596).
Affirmed.