Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date: 1913-04-12
Jurisdiction: United States
Docket: No. 2,452
Citation: 204 F. 1007
Opinion
PER CURIAM. Tn the light of the pleadings and evidence, the result reached in this ease was correct and proper, and, as the ease shows in the alleged contract sued on the bankrupt, Brown, while bargaining with the vendor for a share of the profits to result from the proposed and probable sale and purchase, was representing and interested with the purchasers, we find no prejudicial error -in the charge of the court referred to in the fourth assignment of error. The judgment is affirmed.