Russo-Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington. Action at law by the Russo-Chinese Bank against the National Bank of Commerce of Seattle-, Wash. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington. Action at law by the Russo-Chinese Bank against the National Bank of Commerce of Seattle-, Wash. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. On the 10th day of December, 1903, the Centennial Mill Company, of Seattle, delivered to the Boston Steamship Company and Boston Towboat Company, at Seattle, 35,312 quarter sacks of flour for shipment by the steamship Hyades to Clarkson & Co. at Port Arthur and/or Dalny in Manchuria. The Centennial Mill Company received from the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The defendant in error has interposed motions to dismiss the writ of error, and strike from the files of the court the bill of exceptions. Both motions are made on the ground that the plaintiff in error has failed to comply with certain rules of court.
[ 1 ] The first motion is based upon an alleged failure of the plaintiff in error to comply with rule 24 of this court1 requiring counsel for the plaintiff in error to file with the clerk of the court 20 copies of the printed brief and serve upon the counsel for the defendant in error one copy thereof at least…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- STANTON v. Embrey, AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Meehan v. ValentineSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Coughran v. BigelowSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. 7,405.3 Acres of LandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Shank v. Great Shoshone & Twin Falls Water Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
- Czizek v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- United States v. TuckerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
- Cavana v. Addison Miller, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.