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.
Harry C. THOMAS v. George H. CHARLS, 1928 — 27 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
General
Harry C. THOMAS v. George H. CHARLS
27 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1928
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
Harry C. THOMAS v. George H. CHARLS.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 5, 1928.
No. 4929.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio; D. C. Westenhaver, Judge.
Arthur E. Paige and Frank E. Paige, both of Philadelphia, Pa., and Albert Lynn Lawrence, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Black, McCuskey, Ruff & Souers, of Canton, Ohio, and Fay, Oberlin & Fay, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed pursuant to motion of counsel for appellant.