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.
James K. COCHRAN and Harris Kobey, Assignee, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coulton M. BECKER, Defendant in Error, 1927 — 20 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
James K. COCHRAN and Harris Kobey, Assignee, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coulton M. BECKER, Defendant in Error
20 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
Before STONE and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, 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
James K. COCHRAN and Harris Kobey, Assignee, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Coulton M. BECKER, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
June 13, 1927.
No. 5231.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Before STONE and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition by one of the plaintiffs in error “to vacate and file mandate to review, or certify,” etc.
This litigation has had a long course in this court, beginning in 1918, and various orders have been made therein. A partial outline is revealed in Cochran v. Becker (C. C. A.) 276 F. 280. The matter finally went, by writ of error to this court, to the Supreme Court which dismissed such writ for want of jurisdiction. 261 U. S. 607, 43 S. Ct. 363, 67 L. Ed. 824. Thereafter mandate from the Supreme Court issued to this court, being received by the clerk of this court on July 11, 1923. July 27, 1925, plaintiffs in error filed a motion to file that mandate. September 23, 1925, that motion was denied. December 3, 1925, the above petition was filed to vacate the last above order and to file the mandate. Some months later this motion was submitted. No change in situation is shown, nor any satisfactory reasons shown to us why the action of the court in denying the above motion should be set aside.
The “petition” should be and is denied.