Case ID: f_294/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GILMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES (BOUGHTON, Intervener.)
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    February 8, 1924.)
    No. 3070.
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Charles B. Witmer, Judge.
    Robert W. Archbald, of Scranton, Pa., and William Davis, of Ebensburg, Pa., for plaintiffs in error.
    Andrew B. Dunsmore, U. S. Atty., of Wellsboro, Pa., A. A. Vosburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., and Edward H. Horton, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C.
    M. J. Martin and F. E. Martin, both of Scranton, Pa., for defendant in error Boughton.
    Before WOOEEEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and EYNCH, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

First indicating that no question of the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505) has been raised or decided, we affirm the judgment of that court on the opinion of the learned trial judge (290 Fed. 614), later fortified by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Helmholz v. Horst, 294 Fed. 417, affirming Horst v. United States (D. C.) 283 Fed. 600.