Case Name: Ruffin COLLIE, Clinton Cook, and Robbie Rowe, Appellants, v. Thomas D. FERGUSSON, F. W. Darling and J. S. Darling, Trading as J. S. Darling & Son; S. M. Sinclair; W. J. Williamson; J. C. Council; Nye, the Engine Man, Incorporated; E. T. Lawson and I. E. Lawson, Trading as E. T. Lawson & Son; L. Johnson and H. L. Corkran, Trading as Johnson & Corkran, and J. V. Bickford, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-05-02
Citations: 31 F.2d 1010
Docket Number: No. 2831
Parties: Ruffin COLLIE, Clinton Cook, and Robbie Rowe, Appellants, v. Thomas D. FERGUSSON, F. W. Darling and J. S. Darling, Trading as J. S. Darling & Son; S. M. Sinclair; W. J. Williamson; J. C. Council; Nye, the Engine Man, Incorporated; E. T. Lawson and I. E. Lawson, Trading as E. T. Lawson & Son; L. Johnson and H. L. Corkran, Trading as Johnson & Corkran, and J. V. Bickford, Appellees.
Judges: Before WADDILL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 31
Pages: 1010–1010

Head Matter:
Ruffin COLLIE, Clinton Cook, and Robbie Rowe, Appellants, v. Thomas D. FERGUSSON, F. W. Darling and J. S. Darling, Trading as J. S. Darling & Son; S. M. Sinclair; W. J. Williamson; J. C. Council; Nye, the Engine Man, Incorporated; E. T. Lawson and I. E. Lawson, Trading as E. T. Lawson & Son; L. Johnson and H. L. Corkran, Trading as Johnson & Corkran, and J. V. Bickford, Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
May 2, 1929.
No. 2831.
Jacob L. Morewitz, of Newport News, Va. (Percy Carmel, of Hampton, Va., on the brief), for appellants.
D. Arthur Kelsey, of Norfolk, Va. (Kelsey & Jett, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees J. S. Darling & Son, S. M. Sinclair, E. T. Lawson & Son, W. J. Williamson, and Johnson & Corkran.
Before WADDILL, PARKER, and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have duly consid-
ered the questions arising upon the petition for appeal from the decree of the District Court filed in this -cause on September 4, 1928, and the conclusion reached by us is that the decree should be affirmed. And it appearing that the amounts found to be due appellants were withheld from them pending this appeal at the instance of appellees, although appellees did not appeal from the order allowing same, we think it but right that appellants be allowed interest for the time during which the amounts due them have been thus withheld, and that the costs on appeal be divided.
Affirmed.