UNITED STATES

v.

HAMILTON MICHELSON & COMPANY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Foster v. Peddicord, 826 F.2d 1370 (4th Cir. 1987)
  …rest between the claims of INA and Foster sufficient to allow INA’s filing to “relate back” to the claim initiated by Foster. Marsh v. U.S., 97 F. 2d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1938); United States v. Middleton, 3 F. 2d 384, 392 (4th Cir.1924), cert. denied, 267 U.S. 603, 45 S.Ct. 463, 69 L.Ed. 809 (1925); DeFranco v. United States, 18 F.R.D. 156, 159-62 (S.D.Calif.1955). Therefore, the claim of INA is deemed to have been timely filed. III. Foster argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim of uns…
• The Iossifoglu (D. Md. 1929)
  …covery as the original shipper. See Israel & Bros. v. U. S. Shipping Board (C. C. A.) 23 F.(2d) 786. It is true that in The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 15 S. Ct. 537, 39 L. Ed. 644, and U. S. v. Middleton (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 384 (certiorari denied, 267 U. S. 603, 45 S. Ct. 463, 69 L. Ed. 809), the leading authorities for the American rule, the courts were dealing with the shipment of goods not to be sold until after delivery, but in reason the rule should not be confined to such cases, and has not been so c…