Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
George A. Landell, Executor of E. A. Landell, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 238 F.2d 30
Argued October 2, 1956 Decided October 11, 1956 Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied November 2, 1956
Mr. Robert W. Lishman, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Porter R. Chandler, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Bernard G. Ostmann, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case is here a second time. The District Court (Judge Tamm) originally held the action barred by laches, rendering a careful opinion upon the point.1 Landell appealed, and this court affirmed.2 Certiorari was sought but was denied.3 The mandate of this court issued, and the District Court entered judgment upon it. In doing so it assessed costs. Landell appealed from that judgment, using as procedural justification the feature of costs. Once here, however, he bases the merits of the appeal upon alleged flaws in the findings and other premises upon which the original judgment was based. Those questions are no longer open. Of course a judgment in the posture of this one may be attacked for fraud in its procurement. While appellant clothes his attack in language appropriate to such an issue, no fact remotely suggesting any such infirmity in the present judgment appears here.
The order of the District Court upon the mandate of this court is
Affirmed.
D.C.1954, 122 F.Supp. 253
1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 223 F.2d 316
1955, 350 U.S. 844, 76 S.Ct. 85