Legal Opinion
Barnett v. Mayes
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided August 6, 1930No. 232PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcDERMOTT, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
I. The appellant assigns as error the trial court’s finding that the Mayes deed was not a forgery; his finding that Barnett was not an heir of Leathy Sango; and his finding that Barnett’s claim was barred by laches. No useful purpose will be served by a review of the evidence. As to the forgery, the testimony adduced by Barnett, without more, is unconvincing. One of his witnesses testified that “he and' Cud agreed to divide whatever was recovered in the lawsuit; that he was to furnish Cud with the witnesses.” This same witness, in another lawsuit, took the…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Baltimore Steamship Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Covell v. HeymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. FeltCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1945
- Boynton v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Miller v. First Service CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Oils, Inc. v. BlankenshipCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1944
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.