MARGARET BREWSTER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, JOHN D. CAHILL ET AL.
MARGARET BREWSTER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, JOHN D. CAHILL ET AL.
194 U.S. 628
Supreme Court of the United States (1904)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Submitted April 12, 1904. Decided April 18, 1904. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction nunc pro tunc as of April 7, 1904, on the .authority of Lehigh Water Company v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112, and cases cited; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127, 129; New Orleans Waterworks Company v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336. Mr. Fred F. Beers for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Thomas N. Haskins for defendants in error..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Second Employers' Liability Cases. Mondou v. New York, 223 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1912)
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1910)…e it is made to apply only to railroads. Indianapolis &c. R. R. Co. v. Kane, 80 N. E. Rep. 841; Schoolcrafts, Adm., v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 92 Kentucky, 233; Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Stahley, 62 Fed. Rep. 363; Callahan v. R. R. Co., 170 Missouri, 473, 194 U. S. 628; R. R. Co. v. Ivy, 73 Georgia, 504.” The railway company asked a rehearing for the sole purpose of a reconsideration of what was referred to. as the very important Federal question involved, viz’., “the unconstitutionality of the Indiana statute, a…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1893)
- Cent. Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1895)
- New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1902)
- Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1887)
- Chapin v. FYE, 179 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1900)