Case Name: LYONS PETROLEUM CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold K. WEED, Defendant in Error
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-09-13
Citations: 300 F. 1005
Docket Number: No. 3103
Parties: LYONS PETROLEUM CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold K. WEED, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 300
Pages: 1005–1005

Head Matter:
LYONS PETROLEUM CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold K. WEED, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
September 13, 1924.)
No. 3103.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware; Hugh M. Morris, Judge.
James I. Boyce, of Wilmington, Del., O. D. Batchelor, of New York City, and C. F. Camine, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error.
Charles F. Curley, of Wilmington, Del., and Joseph A. Seidman, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Before WOOL-LEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and BODINE, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After reading the record in this case and carefully considering the questions discussed in the accompanying briefs, we find ourselves everywhere in accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the learned trial judge. Important as are the questions raised, and large as are the sums at stake, a recital of the facts on which the case mainly turns and a discussion of the questions of law arising in the case would, we think, involve merely a repetition of the reasoning of the learned trial judge, and would add nothing to the decision of the case. We therefore affirm the opinion below. 294 Fed. 725.