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.
ARCHIBALD McNEIL & SONS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant in Error, 1931 — 51 F.2d 1073 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
ARCHIBALD McNEIL & SONS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant in Error
51 F.2d 1073·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1931
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
ARCHIBALD McNEIL & SONS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant in Error.
No. 4518.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Aug. 19, 1931.
Geo. Demming, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John R. Geyer and Paul G. Smith, both of Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Geo. C. Doub and Eugene S. Williams, both of Baltimore, Md., and Spencer G. Nau-man, of Harrisburg, Pa., for defendant in error.
Before DAVIS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This was an action of trespass brought by Archibald McNeil & Sons Company to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the Western Maryland Railway Company in giving an undue and unreasonable preference and advantage in violation of sections 3, 8, and 9 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA §§ 3, 8, and 9). The District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for the defendant [42 F.(2d) 669], and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
We have carefully considered the case, and are satisfied that error was not committed. We can add nothing to the able discussion of the case by the learned District Judge. The law declared by him is supported by the findings, which are based on substantial evidence.
We therefore affirm the judgment on his opinion.
Affirmed.