JOHN RONEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
H. J. VAN NESS

U.S. | 1913-11-03
No. 688
231 U.S. 737 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Revised Statutes, § 1008; Allen v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 173 U. S. 479, 484; Aspen Min. & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 36; Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 567.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Egan v. The State of N.J., 234 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1914)
    …Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Zeller v. New Jersey, 231 U. S. 737, and' bases cited.…
  • Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Lawrence, 9 F.2d 64 (8th Cir. 1925)
    …an appellate court. Tho above decision has been quoted with approval in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355, 18 L. Ed. 810, and followed by the Supreme Court in Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 567, 2 S. Ct. 877, 27 L. Ed. 824, and Roney v. Van Ness, 231 U. S. 737, 34 S. Ct. 316, 58 L. Ed. 460. The same rule has been announced and followed in this circuit in U. S. v. Baxter, 51 F. 624, 2 C. C. A. 410, and Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 802, 804. Also, in tho Second Circuit in Siegelschif…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw