GEORGE E. BOWLING ET AL.
v.
FRANK BEAVER ET AL.

U.S. | 1925-10-12
No. 236
269 U.S. 527 Supreme Court of the United States (1925) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Mr. Dick Rice for defendants in error, in support of the motion.

Messrs. Vern E. Thompson and Halbert H. Mc-Cluer for plaintiffs in error, in-opposition thereto.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943)
    …isdiction of this Court was invoked and exercised.3 [*584] The common law writs, like equitable remedies, may be granted or withheld in the sound discretion of the Court, Ex parte Skinner & Eddy Corp., 265 U. S. 86, 95-96; Ex parte City of Monterey, 269 U. S. 527; Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9, 29; United States v. Dern, 289 U. S. 352, 359, and are usually denied where other adequate remedy is available. Ex parte Baldwin, 291 U. S. 610. And ever since the statute vested in the circuit courts of appe…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw