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.
Joseph SIMON et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. William J. KEVILLE, U. S. Marshal, Respondent, Appellee, 1925 — 7 F.2d 1021 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Joseph SIMON et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. William J. KEVILLE, U. S. Marshal, Respondent, Appellee
7 F.2d 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1925
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
Joseph SIMON et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. William J. KEVILLE, U. S. Marshal, Respondent, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 20, 1925.)
No. 1865.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Leo A. Rogers, of Boston, Mass.
(Daniel A. Shea, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for petitioners David and Jennie Shaddock. David Sloneman, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner Joseph Simon. George R. Farnum, of Boston, Mass. (Harold P. Williams, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding from a decree of the District Court affirming an order oí a United States commissioner finding probable cause for the removal of the appellants to the Northern District of Illinois to answer to an indictment for conspiracy. In the District Court Judge Brewster, in an opinion delivered March 13, 1924 (4 F.[2d] 575), carefully considered the questions presented, and, after due consideration, we are of the opinion that tiie conclusion reached and the reasons therefor are correct. The decree of the District Court b affirmed.