General
TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. et al.
218 F. 990·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1915
Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and CALL, 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
TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 6, 1915.)
No. 2678.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas; Gordon Russefi, Judge. Action by the Hartford Fire Insurance Company and another against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
F. H. Prendergast, of Marshall, Tex., for plaintiff in error. S. P. Jones, of Marshall, Tex. (William Thompson, of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and CALL, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We think it follows, from the decision in the companion case of Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rosborough, Home Insurance Company, North British & Mercantile Company, et al. (December 14, 1914) 235 U. S. 429, 35 Sup. Ct. 117, 59 L. Ed. -, that there was no reversible error in the-rulings in this case Which are urged as groupds for a reversal, and that the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.