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.
CHARLESTON, S. C., MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee, 1925 — 3 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
General
CHARLESTON, S. C., MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
3 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1925
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
CHARLESTON, S. C., MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 7, 1925.)
No. 4400.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States from the Southern District of Florida; Rhydou M. Call, Judge.
W. W. Hampton and W. W. Hampton, Jr., both of Gainesville, Fla. (Wm. Wade Hampton, of Gainesville, Fla., Fred J. Hampton, of Tampa, Fla., Edwin Birkett Hampton and Wilson & Swearingen, of Bartow, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.
Wm. M. Gober, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., and Maynard Ramsey, and Harry W. Reinstine, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Jacksonville, Fla.
Before WALKER and BRYAN. Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
Certiorari denied 45 S. Ct. 513, 69 L. Ed. —.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment in this case is affirmed, upon the opinion of the District Judge (298 F. 127).