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.
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. PICKENS COUNTY, Defendant in Error, 1927 — 22 F.2d 1016 · caselaw · US
General
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. PICKENS COUNTY, Defendant in Error
22 F.2d 1016·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1927
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
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. PICKENS COUNTY, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
October 20, 1927.
No. 2661.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, S. C., and S. P. Hutchinson, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
B. F. Martin and E. M. Blythe, both of Greenville, S. C., and Sam B. Craig and W. E. Findley, both of Pickens, S. C., for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Case dismissed, under rule 20, in accordance with agreement of at* tomeys.