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.
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. FERD-BRENNER LUMBER CO., Inc., 1925 — 4 F.2d 390 · caselaw · US
General
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. FERD-BRENNER LUMBER CO., Inc.
4 F.2d 390·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1925
Before WALKER, and BRYAN, 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
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. FERD-BRENNER LUMBER CO., Inc.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1925.)
No. 4426.
Appeal and error <§=501(2, 3), 548(1) — No questions presented for review, where record shows no exceptions, evidence is not preserved by bill of exceptions, and assignments relate only to judgment.
Where record showed no exceptions to rulings on pleadings or evidence, and evidence on which judgment- was based was not presented by bill of exceptions or otherwise, and where assignments related only to judgment, held, nothing was presented for review.
. In Error to the District Court of the United States for Western District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster,. Judge.
Action by James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, against the Ferd-Brenner Lumber Company, Inc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed,
S. L. Richey, of Alexandria, La., and A. L. Burford, of Texarkana, Ark. (Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, La., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Nauman S. Scott, of' Alexandria, La. (Hakenyos & Scott, of Alexandria, La., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This ease was tried by the District Judge, a jury being waived in writing. There was no exception to any ruling on the pleadings, or to the admission or rejection of evidence, during the progress of the trial. The evidence upon which the. judgment was based is not presented by a bill of exceptions or otherwise. The assignments relate only to the judgment. In this state of the record, nothing is presented for review. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 478.
The judgment is affirmed.