EAST LAKE LAND COMPANY
v.
BROWN

U.S. | 1894-12-17
No. 121
155 U.S. 488 Supreme Court of the United States (1894) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 39 L. Ed. 233 · 15 S. Ct. 357 · SCDB 1894-051 · 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2294
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice :

The Chief Justice :

The judgment is reversed with costs, and the case remanded with a direction to remand it to the City Court of Birmingham, county of Jefferson, Alabama, on the authority of Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102.

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1912)
  • Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1900)
    …e party, that the other will- or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United .States, does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws;” Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102; East Lake Land Co. v. Brown, 155 U. S. 488; Oregon Short Line Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490. And, even if it could be held that, by. anticipating a supposed' defence, a Federal question might be made to' appear to be involved in the controversy, jurisdiction in the Circuit Court would fail…
  • Cochran & the Fid. & Deposit Co. v. Montgomery Cnty., 199 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1905)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw