U. S. JOINES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. S. COMBS ET AL.

U.S. | 1917-01-08
No. 130
242 U.S. 619 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Interstate Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134. Mr. C. B. Stuart, Mr. A. C. Cruce, Mr. M. K. Cruce, Mr. W. I. Cruce and Mr. W. R. Bleakmore for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. H. Everest and Mr. R. M. Campbell for the defendants in error.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Raymond v. Chicago, 243 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1917)
    …ered, and consequently no cause of action was alleged under the act. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Nash, 242 U. S. 619. It is also certain that if the petition be treated as alleging a cause of action under the common law, the court below was without authority to afford relief, as that result could only be attained under the local law in accordance with the provisi…
  • Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Brittain, 93 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1937)
    …Shanks v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 239 U.S. 556, 36 S.Ct. 188, 60 L.Ed. 436, L.R.A.1916C, 797; Poff v. Washington Terminal Co., 63 App.D.C. 86, 69 F. 2d 572; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Manning (C.C.A.) 62 F. 2d 293; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Nash, 242 U.S. 619, 620, 37 S.Ct. 239, 61 L.Ed. 531; Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Quin (C.C.A.) 85 F. 2d 485; Castonguay v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 91 Vt. 371, 100 A. 908; Boyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 162 Md. 328, 159 A. 909; Gasser v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 112 Pa.Super.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw