Case Name: James SEAGO, Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA THEATRES, INC., Wilby-Kincey Service Corporation, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Allied Artists Southern Distribution Corporation, and Key Theatres, Inc., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-09-25
Citations: 388 F.2d 987
Docket Number: No. 11298
Parties: James SEAGO, Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA THEATRES, INC., Wilby-Kincey Service Corporation, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Allied Artists Southern Distribution Corporation, and Key Theatres, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 987–987

Head Matter:
James SEAGO, Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA THEATRES, INC., Wilby-Kincey Service Corporation, Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, Universal Film Exchanges, Inc., Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation, United Artists Corporation, Allied Artists Southern Distribution Corporation, and Key Theatres, Inc., Appellees.
No. 11298.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit
Argued June 23, 1967.
Decided Sept. 25, 1967.
Certiorari Denied March 4, 1968.
See 88 S.Ct. 1039.
W. Bradley Ryan, Boston, Mass. (Gut-erman, Horvitz & Rubin, Boston, Mass., Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., and Dupree, Weaver, Horton, Cockman & Alvis, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Fred B. Helms, Charlotte, N. C., and Charles F. Young, Washington, D. C. (James B. Lovelace, Highpoint, N. C., and Kenneth C. Royall, New York City, on brief), for appellees.
Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment is affirmed on the District Court's opinion, 42 F.R.D. 627 (E.D.N.C.1967).
Affirmed.