Bergdoll v. Harrigan

Supreme Court

Bergdoll v. Harrigan

238 U.S. 609, 35 S. Ct. 663, 59 L. Ed. 1487, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1398

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 26, 1915·No. No. 751·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed with costs, upon the authority of rule 6, clause 5; Micas v. Williams, 104 U. S. 556; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201; Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U. S. 210, 214; Northern [610]*610Pacific Railroad v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465, 473, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Joseph Gilfillan and Mr. George S. Graham for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph W. Catharine for the defendant in error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed with costs, upon the authority of rule 6, clause 5; Micas v. Williams, 104 U. S. 556; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201; Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U. S. 210, 214; Northern [610]*610Pacific Railroad v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465, 473, and cause remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Joseph Gilfillan and Mr. George S. Graham for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph W. Catharine for the defendant in error.

Bergdoll v. Harrigan, 238 U.S. 609, 35 S. Ct. 663, 59 L. Ed. 1487, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1398 (1915).

Pincite

238 U.S. 609 (Bergdoll v. Harrigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related