General
PIERCE et al. v. UNITED STATES
260 F. 158·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1919
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and WADE, District Judge.
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
PIERCE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
July 15, 1919.)
No. 5145.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri; David P. Dyer, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Denied.
For former opinion, see 257 Fed. 514, - C. C. A. -. Certiorari denied 250 U. S. 670, 40 Sup. Ct. 15, 64 L. Ed. -.
S. W. Fordyce, Jr., John H. Holliday, Thomas W. White, George T. Priest, and Albert D. Nortoni, all of St. Eouis, Mo., and J. Markham Marshall, of New York City, for appellants.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and WADE, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM. WADE, District Judge,]
PER CURIAM.
It is urged that the trial court erred in the matter of interest included in the judgment under review. As this question was not raised by the assignments of error and briefs at the hearing, we do not think it should be considered now. The other matters in the petition for rehearing were fully considered, and we see no reason for changing the conclusion.
The petition is denied.
WADE, District Judge,
adheres to the views expressed in his dis* senting opinion previously filed. 257 Fed. 518, — C. C. A. -.