Christopher v. Mungen

Supreme Court

Christopher v. Mungen

242 U.S. 611, 37 S. Ct. 18, 61 L. Ed. 526, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1405

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 23, 1916

DocketNo. 507

StatusPublished

This text of 242 U.S. 611 (Christopher v. Mungen) 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

Christopher v. Mungen, 242 U.S. 611, 37 S. Ct. 18, 61 L. Ed. 526, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1405 (1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 470; Mellon v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469. Mr. George C. Bedell for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Nathan P. Bryan and Mr. J. T. G. Crawford for the defendants in error.

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 (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468, 470; Mellon v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469. Mr. George C. Bedell for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Nathan P. Bryan and Mr. J. T. G. Crawford for the defendants in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 U.S. 611, 37 S. Ct. 18, 61 L. Ed. 526, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-v-mungen-scotus-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack