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

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 26, 1915

DocketNo. 751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 U.S. 609 (Bergdoll v. Harrigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 U.S. 609, 35 S. Ct. 663, 59 L. Ed. 1487, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergdoll-v-harrigan-scotus-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack