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 SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF BOSTON, Defendant, Defendant in Error, 1925 — 7 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF BOSTON, Defendant, Defendant in Error
7 F.2d 1020·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1925
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 SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON, Plaintiff, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF BOSTON, Defendant, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 20, 1925.)
No. 1884.
In Error 'to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
Robert H. Holt, of' Boston, Mass. (Gaston, Snow, Saltonstall & Hunt, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. John A. Sullivan, of Boston, Mass. (Wm. Harold Hitchcock, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is the same case that was previously before this court, in which we rendered an opinion July 15, 1924. 300 F. 29. Since then the plaintiff’s declaration has been amended in the District Court as to all the counts, except those upon the accounts annexed, and the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and a demurrer thereto. The District Court has granted the motion to dismiss as to the counts on the accounts annexed and sustained the demurrer to the remaining counts. We see no-reason for changing our views as to the questions decided in our opinion of July 15, 1924. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the defendant in error.