Case Name: William H. SHERWOOD, Administrator Will Annexed of the Estate of Floyd T. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEARL RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT, a Body Corporate and Politic Organized Under and Existing By Virtue of the Laws of Mississippi, 1958, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-06-19
Citations: 427 F.2d 717
Docket Number: No. 27820
Parties: William H. SHERWOOD, Administrator Will Annexed of the Estate of Floyd T. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEARL RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT, a Body Corporate and Politic Organized Under and Existing By Virtue of the Laws of Mississippi, 1958, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 427
Pages: 717–719

Head Matter:
William H. SHERWOOD, Administrator Will Annexed of the Estate of Floyd T. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEARL RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT, a Body Corporate and Politic Organized Under and Existing By Virtue of the Laws of Mississippi, 1958, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 27820.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 1970.
John E. Dier, Holdregen, Neb. (Lead Counsel), Dan M. Lee, Jackson, Miss., William H. Sherwood, Oxford, Neb., for appellant.
L. Arnold Pyle, Clifford C. Chittim, Jackson, Miss., for appellee.
Before JONES, BELL and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are set forth in the reported opinion of the district court. Sherwood v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, S.D.Miss.1969, 301 F.Supp. 61. In their contentions before this Court, as in the district court, both parties rely upon Scott v. United States, 5th Cir. 1951, 190 F.2d 134. This Court is of the opinion, as was the district court, that the Scott decision supports the appellee's contentions rather than those of the appellant. All of the questions in this controversy have been, or should have been, fully litigated in prior actions.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.