UNITED STATES

v.

THOMAS TINGEY'S ADMINISTRATORS

Citator

Cited By

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Air Assocs., Inc., 121 F.2d 586 (2d Cir. 1941)
  …, 8 Cir., 1939, 103 F. 2d 147. On the same basis, we distinguish N. L. R. B. v. Washington Dehydrated Food Co., 9 Cir., 1941, 118 F. 2d 980. N. L. R. B. v. American Potash Corp., 9 Cir., 1938, 98 F. 2d 488, 492; Greenleaf v. Birth, 5 Pet. 132, 135, 8 L.Ed. 72; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 439, 35 S.Ct. 328, 59 L.Ed. 644, Ann.Cas.1916B, 691; Kanawha & M. Railway Co. v. Kerse, 239 U.S. 576, 582, 36 S.Ct. 174, 60 L.Ed. 448; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 240, 60 S.Ct.…
• Cunningham v. Springer, 204 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1907)
  …therefore, presented a case of evidence admitted and used solely upon an [*655] issue which has become immaterial by the verdict of the jury. Any errors, therefore, if such there were, in admitting the evidence became immaterial. Greenleaf v. Birth, 5 Pet. 131; Brobst v. Brock, 10 Wall. 519, 526; Poland v. Brownell, 131 Massachusetts, 138; Sullivan v. Railway, 162 Massachusetts, 536; Hotel Co. v. Grove Co., 165 Massachusetts, 260; Geary v. Stevenson, 169 Massachusetts, 23; Read v. Nichols et al., 118 N. Y…
• Cavender v. Cavender, 114 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1885)
  …provisions of the will were not fully set out in the bill of complaint. If there was any defect in the statement made, in the bill, it was rendered immaterial by the statements of the answer, and is not now ground of complaint.. Greenleaf v. Birth, 5 Pet. 131. A similar assignment of error to that just noticed is, that the court erred in removing the appellee from his office of trustee without having before it the will or declaration of trust for interpretation. But it is clear that a defendant- to a b…