Mohasco Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. E. T. Barwick Mills, Inc. and Barwick Carpet Mills, Inc., Appellees, 342 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1965)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Lewis R. Morgan, Judge.
Albert E. Mayer, Atlanta, Ga., Stanton T. Lawrence, Jr., Leslie B. Young, New York City, Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor & Adams, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Charles H. Walker, New York City, M. Cook Barwick, Wilson, Branch, Barwick and Vandiver, Atlanta, Ga., Albert E. Fey, Fish, Richardson & Neave, New York City, of counsel, for appellees.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In petition for rehearing appellant takes us to task for use of the words in our opinion that we are in agreement "with the result reached by the trial court," and concludes that we have held by implication that some of the findings of the trial court were clearly erroneous and that we may have disapproved of rules of law applied by the trial court. Such interpretation is incorrect. We consider the opinion of the District Court sufficiently informative, and a correct disposition of the issues presented.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing be, and the same is hereby denied, 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 319, which affirmed D.C., 221 F. Supp. 191.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
