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.
Corporations
John Ralph SURRELL and Molby Boiler Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PIERCE, BUTLER & PIERCE MFG. CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees
11 F.2d 441·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
John Ralph SURRELL and Molby Boiler Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PIERCE, BUTLER & PIERCE MFG. CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 4, 1926.)
No. 117.
Appeal from the District Court of thq United States for the Southern District of New York.
Eugene Maekey, of Franklin, Pa., for appellant Surrell.
Charles Neave and Clarence D. Kerr, both of New York City, for appellant Molby Boiler Co.
Howard P. Denison and Eugene A* Thompson, both of Syracuse, N. Y., for appellees.
Before ROGERS and HOUGH, Circuit Judges, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed (11 F.[2d] 432), without costs.