Camden Iron Works Co. v. City of Cincinnati
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio; John E. Safer, Judge. Action by the Camden Iron Works Company against the City of Cincinnati. Judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, and it brings error. On motion 4o dismiss proceedings in error.
1Per curiam
The motions presented arise out of this situation: On September 11, 1914, final judgment was entered in a suit by plaintiff in error against defendant in error. The former, on November 19, 1914, lodged its proposed bill of exceptions with the clerk *847of the District Court. On December 21st, following, the application to allow and sign the bill of exceptions was denied. In answer to an application presented by plaintiff in error to this court for a mandamus to compel the signing and settlement of such bill, the District Judge gave as his reasons for refusing so to do, first, that no completed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hunnicutt v. PeytonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Shreve v. CheesmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Old Nick Williams Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Camden Iron Works Co. v. SaterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- J. D. Randall Co. v. Foglesong Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ader v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1922
- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. LeverentzCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Benitez v. Bank of Nova ScotiaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1940
- Vaughan v. American Ins. Co. of NewarkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1926
- Ross v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.