Gardiner v. Wm. S. Butler & Co.

230 F. 1021 | 1st Cir. | 1915

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is concluded, so far as we are concerned, by our decision in Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 230 Fed. 31, — C. C. A. —, *1022passed down at our present session, which two cases were heard practically simultaneously. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with interest; and the appellees recover their costs of appeal.





Concurrence Opinion

PUTNAM, J.

I concur in the result. The District Court applied to this case the rule of Slocum v. Soliday, 183 Fed. 410, 412, 106 C. C. A. 66. I do not know whether the case is governed by this rule or not; but, in the absence of authorities otherwise, 1 feel bound by it. The application of this case cuts up all the further reasoning contained in this opinion of the court. Therefore I concur that the case is governed by Sloeum v. Soliday, and decline to enter into further discussion.