Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
This was a petition by Erastus Woodward and others, appellants, for a rehearing of their appeal, after a decision affirming the decree of the circuit court. 8 O. 0. A. 622, 60 Fed. 283. Leave to file briefs was granted to both parties.
1Per curiam
The court has given careful attention to the petition for a rehearing filed in this case, and the briefs thereon filed by each party by leave of court, which have fully argued the grounds on which the court decided this case in its opinion in 8 C. C. A. 622, 60 Fed. 283. The matter is so important that it is proper to explain why we deny the petition.
For all we need say touching the rule of estoppel applicable to this case, in addition to what appears in the opinion in 8 C. C. A. 622, 60 Fed. 283, we refer to the opinion passed down this day in Babcock v. Clarkson, 63 Fed. 607.
It is said that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Babcock v. ClarksonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Time Telegraph Co. v. HimmerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1884
- Smith v. WeeksCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1893
- Underwood v. WarrenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1884
3Cited by11 opinions
- Helvering v. GowranSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- In re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1896
- Dixie-Vortex Co. v. Paper Container Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Jensen v. New York Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Toledo Boiler Works Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.