THE MOBILE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF MOBILE ET AL.

U.S. | 1905-12-11
No. 103
199 U.S. 604 Supreme Court of the United States (1905) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, §6; Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Carey v. Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, 161 U. S. 115; Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691; Gableman v. Peoria Railway Company, 179 U. S. 335, 339; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Company, 191 U. S. 526; Mobile Transportation Company v. Mobile, 187 U. S. 482; S. C., 195 U. S. 631.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …d, and no right specially set up or claimed .under it was denied.” That case has frequently been cited approvingly since. Warder v. Loomis, 197 U. S. 619; Watkins v. American Nat’l Bank of Denver, 199 U. S. 599; Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile, 199 U. S. 604; Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U. S. 118, 126; Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Co. v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining Co., 200 U. S. 613; Russell v. Russell, 200 U. S. 613; Bush v. Elliott, supra; Warder v. Cotton and Gr…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw