Case Name: TEXAS COMPANY and Orange-Cameron Land Company, Appellants, v. ROSENTHAL-BROWN FUR COMPANY, Inc., and C. W. Brown, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1927-01-03
Citations: 16 F.2d 1022
Docket Number: No. 4809
Parties: TEXAS COMPANY and Orange-Cameron Land Company, Appellants, v. ROSENTHAL-BROWN FUR COMPANY, Inc., and C. W. Brown, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 1022–1022

Head Matter:
TEXAS COMPANY and Orange-Cameron Land Company, Appellants, v. ROSENTHAL-BROWN FUR COMPANY, Inc., and C. W. Brown, Appellees.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 3, 1927.
Rehearing Denied February 10, 1927.)
No. 4809.
Hampden Story, of Shreveport, La., and A. P. Pujo, of Lake Charles, La. (Hampden Story, of Shreveport, La., A. P. Pujo, and Pujo & Bell, all of Lake Charles, La., and Fred L. Williams, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellants.
S. W. Plauche and Cullen R. Liskow, both of Lake Charles, La., and Eldon S. Lazarus, of New Orleans, La. (S. W. Plauche, Cullen R. Liskow, C. A. McCoy, all of Lake Charles, La., and Eldon S. Lazarus, of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and POSTER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The result of a careful consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel in this case is that we reach the same conclusion which is evidenced by the decree appealed from. The opinion rendered by the District Judge (Texas Co. v. Rosenthal-Brown Fur Co., 12 F.[2d] 297) sufficiently states reasons justifying the refusal to grant any relief prayed for, except that which was granted by that decree, and we think that further discussion of the questions involved would be superfluous.
The decree is affirmed.