General
GALLUCHAT v. PITTMAN et al.
288 F. 928·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1923
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
GALLUCHAT v. PITTMAN et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
February 6, 1923.)
No. 2033.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina, at Charleston; Henry A. Middleton Smith, Judge.
Suit in equity by Minnie M. Galluchat, administratrix of the estate of M. C. Galluchat, deceased, substituted complainant, against Robert H. Pittman, Thomas Hume, and the Michigan Trust Company, executors and trustees of the estate of Charles H. Hackley, deceased. Decree for defendants (288 Fed. 917), and complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
' G. T.- Graham, of Lexington, S. C., and Barnard B. Evans, of Columbia, S. C. (John Gary Evans, of Spartanburg, S. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Henry Buist, of Charleston, S. C. (George L. Buist, of Charleston, S. C., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WOODS and WADDILL, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The reasoning of the District Judge in his decree refusing to remand the case to the state court, and in the final decree dismissing the complaint on the merits, is so full and convincing that nothing of substance can be added. Colleton Mercantile & Manufacturing Co. v. Savannah River Lumber Co., 280 'Fed. 358, decided by this court since the trial, supports the District Judge in refusing to remand the cause.
Affirmed.