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
R. H. ARNOLD, Doing Business as R. H. Arnold & Co., and Globe Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, for the Use of W. B. GUIMARIN & CO., and Williams-Hutson Lumber Company, Intervener. Defendants in Error
5 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1924
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
R. H. ARNOLD, Doing Business as R. H. Arnold & Co., and Globe Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, for the Use of W. B. GUIMARIN & CO., and Williams-Hutson Lumber Company, Intervener. Defendants in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
November 25, 1924.)
No. 2309.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Logan & Grace, of Charleston, S. C., and Wm. Henry White and Ellwood P. Morey, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S. C., and Whaley, Barn-well & Grimball, of Charleston, S. C., for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Order dismissing case at the cost of the plaintiffs in error filed.