UNITED STATES

v.

W. A. MCFARLAND AND J. NORRIS MCFARLAND, COPARTNERS, TRADING AS HENRY MARCUS AND SON

Citator

Cited By

• Toledo v. Allen, 276 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1928)
  …rdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant, alleging numerous grounds, moved for a new trial. It was deni¿d. The case was [*168] taken to the Supreme Court where the judgment was affirmed. 292 S. W. 730. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 273 U. S. 688. The yard where plaintiff was injured included a lead track and, connected with it, a number of parallel switch tracks, the centers of which were about 12 feet apart. Plaintiff had been regularly employed there as car checker for about 18 months, a…
• Lamborn v. The Nat'l Bank of Commerce of Norfolk, 276 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1928)
  …d trial, the presiding [*472] judge, applying the rule declared by the appellate court, directed a verdict for the defendant. The judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 15 F. (2d) 473. This Court granted a writ of certiorari, 273 U. S. 688, because of conflict with cases decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Matthew Smith Tea, Coffee & Grocery Co. v. Lamborn (and other cases), 276 Fed. 325, 10 F. (2d) 697, certiorari denied, 271 U. S. 683, 685, 686. The defe…
• United States v. Avery (N.D.N.Y. 1927)
  …nly one case •which deals after a trial with most of many questions which have arisen in these cases. That is U. S. v. McFarland et al. (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 823. Writ of certiorari in this ease, previously granted by the United States Supreme Court (273 U. S. 688, 47 S. Ct. 449, 71 L. Ed. 841), was revoked on October 17, 1927 (275 U. S. 485, 48 S. Ct. 27, 72 L. Ed. 386), with the following statement: “Per Curiam. The decision of this ease does not require a decision of the questions which are presented in t…