General
Olive A. McGREW, Appellant, v. John L. McGREW and Catharine D. McGrew, Appellees
11 F.2d 998·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
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
Olive A. McGREW, Appellant, v. John L. McGREW and Catharine D. McGrew, Appellees.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted February 3, 1926.
Decided April 5, 1926.)
No. 4305.
H. E. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
B. S. Minor, H. P. Gatley, H. B. Rowland, A. P. Drury, and S. D. Willis, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Certiorari denied 46 S. Ct. 633, 70 L. Ed. —-.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This case was here on a former appeal. McGrew v. McGrew, 54 App. D. C. 331, 299 F. 204. It is conceded on all sides that the identical questions are again raised that were present and decided in the former ease. Counsel for plaintiff in open court stated that, if consistency were indulged by the court, affirmance must necessarily follow. We find no occasion to depart from the well-established procedure in this particular.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.