Lake Charles Rice Milling Co. v. Pacific Rice Growers' Ass'n
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The court below held that the rights of the .appellant as against each of the appellees were wholly separate and distinct as arising under independent contracts with each, and that there was no community of interest between them. It may be conceded that under the provisions of section 267 of the Judicial Code, enacted for the purpose of emphasizing the protection of a trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, and providing that no suit in equity may be maintained in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law, if the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Boyce's Executors v. GrundySupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Hale v. AllinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Gaines Et Ux. v. ChewSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Wyman v. BowmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Cruickshank v. BidwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Holly Sugar Corp. v. FritzlerWyoming Supreme Court · 1931
- Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields v. KilkearyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- First State Bank v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- American Central Ins. v. Harmon Knitting Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
- Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. v. PeakeDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.