EMERY BIRD THAYER DRY GOODS CO. ET AL.
v.
WILLIAMS ET AL.; AND WILLIAMS ET AL. V. EMERY BIRD THAYER DRY GOODS CO. ET AL.
EMERY BIRD THAYER DRY GOODS CO. ET AL.
WILLIAMS ET AL.; AND WILLIAMS ET AL. V. EMERY BIRD THAYER DRY GOODS CO. ET AL.
302 U.S. 651
Supreme Court of the United States (1937)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
On certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Messrs. Armwell L. Cooper and Frederick H. Wood for Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al., and Messrs. Henry M. Channing and Barton Cornean for Moses Williams et al.
Per Curiam:
The motion to bring up the entire record and cause is denied. Upon examination of the certificate, the certificate is dismissed. Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216, 221; Biddle v. Luvisch, 266 U. S. 173; Smith v. Ajax Pipe Line Co., 298 U. S. 641; Dixie Terminal Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 645.
Reported below: 15 F. Supp. 938.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Starr v. O'Connor, 118 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1941)…he case of savings funds and time deposit^, for twenty-five years. American National Bank of Nashville v. Clarke, Sup’t of Banks, decided February 3, 1940, 175 Tenn. 480, 135 S.W. 2d 935. Compare National City Bank of New York v. Philippine Islands, 302 U.S. 651, 58 S.Ct. 269, 82 L.Ed. 504, which also cited and followed the San Jose bank case, supra. The necessity for applying the doctrine of the San Jose case is even more apparent from the attitude of the State of Michigan in its deliberate failure to fol…
-
Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Williams, 107 F.2d 965 (8th Cir. 1939)…re the assignee of the lease and the sub-lessee from the assignee. Defendants are the lessors. An earlier determination of these appeals (8 Cir., 98 F. 2d 166, certificate to Supreme Court dismissed and motion to take up case on entire record denied 302 U.S. 651, 58 S.Ct. 269, 82 L.Ed. 505) was set aside on a petition for rehearing. To understand the determinative issues on these cross-appeals which are necessary to our determination, a brief statement as to certain provisions of the lease, as to some of t…
Authorities Cited
- Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1887)
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 215 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1909)
- Biddle v. Luvisch, 266 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1924)
- Dixie Terminal Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1936)
- Ex parte Pollitt, 298 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1936)
- Mountain States Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Mont., 298 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1936)