Case ID: f_230/html/1021-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PUTNAM, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GARDINER v. WM. S. BUTLER & CO., Inc., et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    December 9, 1915.)
    No. 1102.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Frederic Dodge, Judge.
    Alexander Whiteside, of Boston, Mass. (C. Claflin Davis and Warren, Garfield, Whiteside & Lamson, all of Boston, Mass., with him on the brief), for appellant. Frederick H. Nash, of Boston, Mass. (Charles F. Choate, Jr., of Boston, Mass., with Mm on the brief), for appellees.
    Before PUTNAM and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

This case is concluded, so far as we are concerned, by our decision in Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 230 Fed. 31, — C. C. A. —, passed down at our present session, which two cases were heard practically simultaneously. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with interest; and the appellees recover their costs of appeal.

PUTNAM, J.

I concur in the result. The District Court applied to this case the rule of Slocum v. Soliday, 183 Fed. 410, 412, 106 C. C. A. 66. I do not know whether the case is governed by this rule or not; but, in the absence of authorities otherwise, 1 feel bound by it. The application of this case cuts up all the further reasoning contained in this opinion of the court. Therefore I concur that the case is governed by Sloeum v. Soliday, and decline to enter into further discussion.