Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams Slate Co.

Supreme Court

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams Slate Co.

269 U.S. 540, 46 S. Ct. 202

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 11, 1926

DocketNo. 787

StatusPublished

This text of 269 U.S. 540 (Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams Slate Co.) 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

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams Slate Co., 269 U.S. 540, 46 S. Ct. 202 (1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6,1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Petition for certiorari denied, and, there appearing to be no reasonable ground for granting the petition, a penalty, of $25 is awarded respondent and against the [541]*541petitioner as reasonable damages for the delay under the proviso in. sectipn C of section 237 of the Judicial Code,. as amended by the act of February 13; 1925, c. 229, sec. 1, 43 Stat. 937.

Messrs. Samuel A. Anderson and' Arden Hpvhell for. defendant in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. David H. Leake and Walter Leake for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.

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

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6,1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6. Petition for certiorari denied, and, there appearing to be no reasonable ground for granting the petition, a penalty, of $25 is awarded respondent and against the [541]*541petitioner as reasonable damages for the delay under the proviso in. sectipn C of section 237 of the Judicial Code,. as amended by the act of February 13; 1925, c. 229, sec. 1, 43 Stat. 937.

Messrs. Samuel A. Anderson and' Arden Hpvhell for. defendant in error, in support of the motion. Messrs. David H. Leake and Walter Leake for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 U.S. 540, 46 S. Ct. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-ohio-railway-co-v-williams-slate-co-scotus-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack