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.
Securities
CITIZENS' BANK OF WARRENTON v. MOORE; AMERICAN TRUST CO. v. ALAMANCE RY. CO.
46 F.2d 307·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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
CITIZENS’ BANK OF WARRENTON v. MOORE. AMERICAN TRUST CO. v. ALAMANCE RY. CO.
No. 3068.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1931.
J. H. Bridgers, of Henderson, N. C., for appellant.
S. S. P. Patteson, of Richmond, Va. (S. S. P. Patteson & Muse, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and COLEMAN, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this ease. See (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 791. Upon the former appeal, the case was remanded in order that the pleadings might be amended and additional evidence heard. This has been done; and, upon the evidence adduced, both the master and the judge have found that there was no sufficient showing that the bonds in question were ever pledged as security for the indebtedness of Paschal to the Citizens’ Bank of Warrenton. The judge has found further that, even if there had been a pledge, the bank is barred by laches from asserting its claim. We have examined the record carefully, and wo do not think that it contains anything which would justify us in disturbing either of these findings. We need not go into the question of the validity of the attachment, or the rights acquired by the appellee, Moore, thereunder, as the bank, since it has no interest in the fund in controversy, is not entitled to raise a question with regard thereto. The decree appealed from will accordingly be affirmed.
Affirmed.