DONNELLY
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONNELLY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
119 U.S. 339
Supreme Court of the United States (1886)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 465 · 7 S. Ct. 276 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1994 · SCDB 1886-050
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
TVE?.. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Looney v. The District of Columbia, 113 U. S. 258. It having been found as a fact by the court below that no mistake had been made in reducing the contract to writing, no' questions are presented in this court on that branch of the case.
Affirmed:
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 61 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1932)…or it does not appear that in fact the necessary diversity existed. An appellate court must reverse for want of jurisdiction, but may give leave to the trial court to permit correction by amendment of the pleadings. Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, 7 S. Ct. 276, 30 L. Ed. 462; Thomas v. Anderson, 223 F. 41 (C. C. A. 8); Watson v. Bonfils, 116 F. 157 (C. C. A. 8); Matthew v. Coppin, supra; Grove v. Grove, 93 F. 865 (C. C. Kan.). Although this court apparently dismissed in toto in Danks v. Gordon, supra,…
-
Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co., 121 F.2d 561 (8th Cir. 1941)…y this Court. Morgan’s Executor v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81, 83, 22 L.Ed. 100; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 651, 24 L.Ed. 1057; Continental Life Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, 240, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U.S. 341, 342, 7 S.Ct. 276, 30 L.Ed. 462; King Iron Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225, 227, 7 S.Ct. 552, 30 L.Ed. 623; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 590, 9 S.Ct. 173, 32 L.Ed. 543; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U.S. 253, 254, 7 S.Ct. 873, 30 L.Ed. 914; Levering & G…
-
Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 164 F.2d 952 (6th Cir. 1947)…ies Garment Workers Union v. Donnelly Garment Co., 8 Cir., 121 F. 2d 561; Alderman v. Elgin, J. E. R. Co., 7 Cir., 125 F. 2d 971. See also Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U.S. 341, 7 S.Ct. 276, 30 L.Ed. 462. Although this rule does not apply when such a defendant is merely a nominal or formal party, in which cases his joinder may be disregarded, yet in the present case Grant was at least a proper party to the action, regardless of whether…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Looney v. Dist. of Columbia, 113 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1885)