Boyd v. Smythe

Supreme Court

Boyd v. Smythe

270 U.S. 635, 46 S. Ct. 470, 70 L. Ed. 772, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 463

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 12, 1926

DocketNo. 871

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 U.S. 635 (Boyd v. Smythe) 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

Boyd v. Smythe, 270 U.S. 635, 46 S. Ct. 470, 70 L. Ed. 772, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 463 (1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Application for a writ of super-sedeas and for leave to file a bond denied; motion for leave to amend the petition in error denied, and the writ of error dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, upon thé authority of Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683; Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 281; DeBearn v. Safe Deposit & Trust Company, 233 U. S. 24, 34; McDonald v. Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co., 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370; (2) McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 181; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 243; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 530; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, [636]*636147.

Mr. Lloyd L. Duke for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Benjamin J. Gibson and Neill Garrett for defendant in error. .

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

Per Curiam.

Application for a writ of super-sedeas and for leave to file a bond denied; motion for leave to amend the petition in error denied, and the writ of error dismissed, for want of jurisdiction, upon thé authority of Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683; Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 281; DeBearn v. Safe Deposit & Trust Company, 233 U. S. 24, 34; McDonald v. Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co., 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670; Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 370; (2) McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 181; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 243; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 530; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, [636]*636147.

Mr. Lloyd L. Duke for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Benjamin J. Gibson and Neill Garrett for defendant in error. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 U.S. 635, 46 S. Ct. 470, 70 L. Ed. 772, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-smythe-scotus-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack