Freund v. Yaegerman
| Decision Date | 25 March 1886 |
| Citation | 27 F. 248 |
| Parties | FREUND v. YAEGERMAN. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
A. Binswanger and E. Smith, for complainant.
Robert Goode, for defendant.
In Freund against Yaegerman there is a petition for a rehearing. The case comes clearly within the line of the cases heretofore decided in this court, commencing with Martin v. Hausman, 14 F. 160, and ending with Clapp v. Nordmeyer, 25 F. 71. In the course of the various opinions that I have had occasion to express, I have stated fully my own views, and the reasons why, in deference to the opinions of the other judges in this district, including the presiding justice, I have made those decisions. In the last, or next to the last, of those cases I stated that that would be the rule of this court until there had been an authoritative declaration by the supreme court of the United States or the supreme court of the state of Missouri to the contrary. Now there is presented a decision of the Kansas City court of appeals which it is claimed enunciates views different from those announced heretofore, and in harmony with the opinions that I personally hold, and I am asked to reverse the line of decisions here. That is not an authoritative exposition of the law in Missouri. The St. Louis court of appeals may rule one way and the Kansas City court of appeals another. There is but the one authoritative expounder of the Missouri statutes in this state, and that is your supreme court. So the petition for the rehearing will be denied.
---------
Notes:
[1] Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westerlund v. Black Bear Min. Co.
...the statutes of that state, and those only, that the federal courts consider themselves bound to adopt and follow. Freund v. Yaegerman (C.C.) 27 F. 248; Lead Co. v. Swyers, 161 F. 687, 88 C.C.A. 547. And as the opinion in this Mosher Case does not refer to the provisions of the statute unde......
-
Field v. Fidelity Union Trust Co.
...of the state, was termed "not an authoritative declaration of the law of the state of Colorado * * *." Similarly, Freund v. Yaegerman, Circuit Court E. D. of Mo., 27 F. 248. In United States Telephone Co. v. Central Union Tel. Co., 202 F. 66, 69, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth C......
-
Larrabee v. The Franklin Bank
...Richardson, 19 F. 70; Clapp v. Dittman, 21 F. 15; Perry v. Corby, 21 F. 737; Kerbs v. Ewing, 22 F. 693; Freund v. Yaegerman, 26 F. 812, and 27 F. 248; State v. Morse, 27 F. 261. But these federal decisions have all been overruled or a different doctrine announced by the supreme court of the......
-
Graham v. Englemann
... ... U.S. Tel. Co. v. Central Tel ... Co., 202 F. 66, 122 C.C.A. 86; Patapsco Water Co. v ... Morrison, 18 F. Cas. 1284, No. 10792; Freund v ... Yaegerman (C.C.) 27 F. 248 ... In ... Continental Securities Co. v. Interborough R.T. Co ... (C.C.) 165 F. 959, the court says: ... ...