New York Dry Goods Store v. Pabst Brewing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Tliis was an action brought by the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called “plaintiff,” for rent alleged to be due to it by the terms of a written lease entered into with the defendant in error, hereinafter called “defendant,” for the premises described as all the basement of the premises numbered 166. 168. 170, and 172 South State street, Chicago', excepting certain space used for steam…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Tliis was an action brought by the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called “plaintiff,” for rent alleged to be due to it by the terms of a written lease entered into with the defendant in error, hereinafter called “defendant,” for the premises described as all the basement of the premises numbered 166. 168. 170, and 172 South State street, Chicago', excepting certain space used for steam boilers, elevators, engines, etc. The lease was executed August 26, 1897, for the term of four years and seven months,…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, District Judge
Rule 24 of this court requires that the brief for the plaintiff in error shall contain, after a concise abstract or statement of the case, a specification of the errors relied upon, setting out in cases brought up by writ of error separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged. In Vider v. O’Brien, 10 C. C. A. 386, 62 Fed. 327, 18 U. S. App. 711, 713, the intention of this rule was declared to be “that each specification of the brief should conform substantially, if not literally, to the particular specification of error on which it is predicated; and for convenience…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. McEnanyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Merrick's v. GiddingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Second Ward Savings Bank v. ShakmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crawford v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917