Case ID: f_134/html/1021-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DALLAS, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MEIGS v. LONDON ASSUR. CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    February 3, 1905.)
    
      No. 15.
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United' States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    Samuel Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
    G. W. Pepper, for defendant in error.
    Before DADLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.
   DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The able argument which has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff in error has had our careful attention, but it has failed to convince us that any error was committed by the Circuit Court in its decision of this case. The learned judge carefully considered it in an-opinion which, we think, completely vindicated his conclusion. 126 Fed. 781. Upon that opinion, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.