Contracts · MBE-tested
BOLLES et al. v. HAMILTON COUNTY
74 F. 207·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1896
Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, 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
BOLLES et al. v. HAMILTON COUNTY.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 7, 1896.)
No. 174.
Error to the Circuit Court of the (Tutted States for die Southern District of rilinois.
Geo. A. Sanders and Win. R. Bowers, for plaintiff in error.
,T. R. Williams and .T. M. Hamill, for defendant in error.
Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an action of assumpsit upon coupons from bonus issued by the county of Hamilton, Ill., to the St. Louis & Southeastern Railway Company. Trial by jury was waived by written agreement, and the court made a general finding and gave judgment tor the plaintiff in error upon a part, but not upon all, of the coupons In suit. There is no special finding of fads, and in other respects also the record is the same as in the case of Woodbury V. City of Shawneetown. 71 Fed. 205. For the reasons there explained, no question is presented for consideration, and the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.