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.
General
AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. JACKSON
26 F.2d 248·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1928
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
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
AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. JACKSON.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 7, 1928.
No. 5324.
I. Courts <@=£>406(1) — Questions not considered nor decided by court below not considered by Circuit Court of Appeals.
Questions not considered nor decided by the court below will not be considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Appeal and error <@=I2I2(I) — New trial by appellate court reopens every issue except questions finally determined by appellate court.
The granting of a new trial by the appellate court reopens every issue in the case except as to questions definitely and finally determined by the appellate court.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the District of Idaho; Charles C. Cavanah, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion, see 24 F.(2d) 768.
Richards & Haga, of Boise, Idaho, for appellant.
Scatterday & Stone, of Caldwell, Idaho, and Frank T. Wyman, of Boise, Idaho, for appellee.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The appellee has petitioned for a rehearing upon two grounds: First, because the court did not consider or determine the effect of a preferred claim in the sum of $800 in favor of one Jeffries, arising out of a special deposit dissipated by the bank; and, second, because the court did not specify or define the issues to be retried. The first question was not considered or decided by the court below, and for that reason was not considered by this court, and the granting of a new trial reopens every issue in the case except as to questions definitely and finally determined by the appellate court.
Petition denied.