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.
Contracts · MBE-tested
Harry L. SUTHERLAND, Appellant, v. W. J. McINNES, Receiver, etc., Appellee
14 F.2d 307·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
Harry L. SUTHERLAND, Appellant, v. W. J. McINNES, Receiver, etc., Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
August 7, 1926.)
No. 7218.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico; Colin Neblett, Judge.
Tomlinson Fort, of Roswell, N. M. (Hiram M. Dow, of Roswell, N. M., on the brief), for appellant.
R. D. Bowers, of Hagerstown, Md., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and WOODROUGH and SCOTT, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — WOODROUGH, District Judge.]
WOODROUGH, District Judge.
The considerations which compel an affirmance in the ease of Nicholas Brill v. McInnes, Receiver (No. 7217) 14 F.(2d) 306, result in an affirmance in this ease; and it is so ordered.