General
MEIGS v. LONDON ASSUR. CO.
134 F. 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1905
Before DADLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, 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
MEIGS v. LONDON ASSUR. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
February 3, 1905.)
No. 15.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United' States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Samuel Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
G. W. Pepper, for defendant in error.
Before DADLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — DALLAS, Circuit Judge.]
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The able argument which has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff in error has had our careful attention, but it has failed to convince us that any error was committed by the Circuit Court in its decision of this case. The learned judge carefully considered it in an-opinion which, we think, completely vindicated his conclusion. 126 Fed. 781. Upon that opinion, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.