LOUISVILLE BEDDING COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES; AND THE HUDSON BAY KNITTING COMPANY, LIMITED V. UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1925-10-26
Nos. 61; No. 62
269 U.S. 533 Supreme Court of the United States (1925) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

These two appeals, allowed before the going into effect of the act of February 13, 1925, revising the jurisdiction of this court, abolishing appeals from the Court of Claims, and requiring that review may be had of its judgments only by certiorari, abundantly show the wisdom of the change. They invoke no substantial question of law, they did not merit'and did not elicit a formal opinion from the Court of Claims, and they do riot call for one here. The appeals are accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Nat'l Contracting Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 628 (U.S. 1926)
    …Per Curiam. Affirmed, without opinion, for lack of any substantial reason for appeal; Louisville Bedding Co. et al., v. United States, 269 U. S. 533.…
  • Showalter v. Hampton, 26 F.2d 777 (8th Cir. 1928)
    …s payment was executed. From the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, the appellant sought and obtained a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. The writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Showalter v. Hampton, 269 U. S. 533, 46 S. Ct. 100, 70 L. Ed. 398. III. The appellant contends that the county court of Ottawa county had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of the guardian’s liability for any amount charged to have been received by her on account of t…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw