General
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. William V. BARTLETT, Appellee
73 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
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
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. William V. BARTLETT, Appellee.
No. 7408.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 26, 1934.
Peirson M. Hall, TJ. S. Atty., Mansel G. Gallahcr, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Ernest D. Fooks, Atty. Dept, of Justice, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and Will G. Beardslee, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., Randolph C. Shaw, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Walsh, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Armistead L. Boothe, Atty. Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. C.
Wm. II. Wilson and Wm. Christensen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The record in this ease does not present the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment. Continental Nat. Bank et al. v. National City Bank of New York (C. C. A.) 69 F.(2d) 312. This being the only assignment of error presented by the appellant, the judgment is affirmed.