Atlas Nat. Bank v. Holm
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western. District of Wisconsin.
1Opinion of the Court
WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The brief of the plaintiff in error does not, as required by our rule 24, contain (1) a concise abstract or statement of the case; (2) a specification of the errors relied on; and (3) a brief of the argument. The statement, instead of being concise,, is made up largely of quotations of testimony from the bill of exceptions, and extends over 44 of the 5(5 pages which the brief contains. A specification of errors, distinct from the argument, is entirely wanting.
The action was brought by the plaintiff in error, tbe Atlas National Bank of Chicago, against Andrew Holm, Guilder…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Montclair v. RamsdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Shaw v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Murray v. LardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Goodman v. SimondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Forbes v. First Nat. Bank of EnidSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Link v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Doe v. Northwestern Coal & Transportation Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1896
- Meyer v. Guardian Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
- Hunt v. KileCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.