Case ID: f_194/html/0853-01.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

B. J. WOLF & SONS v ROYAL INS. CO., LIMITED, OF LIVERPOOL.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    February 20, 1912.)
    Nos. 2,209, 2,220, 2,222, 2,223, 2,225, 2,226, 2,230, 2,259-2,264.
    In "Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
    Actions by B. J. Wolf & Sons against the Royal Insurance Company, Limited, of Liverpool (No. 2,209), by the Northern Assurance Company, of London, England, against the Central Glass Compan}, Limited (No. 2,220), by the liartford Eire Insurance Company, of Hartford, Conn., against the Central Glass Company, Limited (No. 2,222), by the Michigan Commercial Insurance Company, of Lansing, Mich., against the Central Glass Company, Limited (No; 2,223), by the Dixie Eire Insurance Company, of Greensboro, N. C., against the Central Glass Company, Limited (No. 2,225), by the Detroit Fire & Marine Insurance Company, of Detroit, Mich., against the Central Glass Company, Limited "(No. 2,226), by the Shawnee Fire Insurance Company, of Topeka, Kan., against the Central Glass Company, Limited (No. 2,230), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Shawnee Fire.Insurance Company (No. 2,259), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Detroit Fire & Marine Insurance Company (No. 2,260), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, of Hartford (No. 2,261), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Michigan Commercial Insurance Company (No. 2,262), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Dixie Fire Insurance Company (No. 2,263), by the Central Glass Company, Limited, against the Northern Assurance Company'' (No. 2,264). Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
    Affirmed.
    No. 2,209:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    Donelson Caffery, Lamar C. Quintero, and Philip S. Gidiere, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,220:
    Donelson Caffery, Lamar C. Quintero, Philip S-. Gidiere, and J. C. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,222:
    J. C. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,223:
    J. C. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,225:
    J. C. Plollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,226:
    J. C. Plollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,230:
    J. C. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,259:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error:
    T. C. Hollingsworth, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,260:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    T. C. Hollingsworth, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,261:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    J. C. Hollingsworth, Donelson Caffery, Lamar C. Quintero, and Philip S. Gidiere, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,262:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    J. C. Hollingsworth, Donelson Caffery, Lamar C. Quintero, an.d Philip 'S. Gidiere, for defendant in error.
    
      No. 2,263:
    Henry L. Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    T. C. Hollingsworth, for defendant in error.
    No. 2,264:
    Henry T„ Lazarus and Eldon S. Lazarus, for plaintiff in error.
    J. C. Hollingsworth, Donelson Caffery, Larnar C. Quintero, andi Philip S. Gidiere, for defendant in error.
    Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Under agreement between the parties that the judgments in the above entitled and numbered cases should follow that in Guardian Fire Ins. Co. v. Central Glass Co., 194 Fed. 851, No. 2,218 and No. 2,258, just decided, the judgments of the Circuit Court are affirmed, with costs.