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.
LACLEDE-CHRISTY CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY v. TOLEDO PLASTER & SUPPLY COMPANY, 1927 — 19 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
General
LACLEDE-CHRISTY CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY v. TOLEDO PLASTER & SUPPLY COMPANY
19 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1927
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
LACLEDE-CHRISTY CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY v. TOLEDO PLASTER & SUPPLY COMPANY.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 14, 1927.
No. 4664.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; John M. Killits, Judge.
Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Effler of Toledo, Ohio, and McDonald & Just, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Warren J. Duffey and George C. Bryce, both of Toledo, Ohio, for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of District Court affirmed.