Conklin v. Conklin

Supreme Court

Conklin v. Conklin

254 U.S. 608, 65 L. Ed. 435, 41 S. Ct. 12, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1123

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 18, 1920·No. No. 192·Published

Opinion

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Argued October 12, 1920. Decided October 18, 1920. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184. Mary L. Greer Conklin pro se. Mr. William M. Howard, with whom Mr. Jos. B. Gumming, Mr. J. C. C. Black, Mr. William H. Barrett, Mr. Bryan Cumming, Mr. C. Henry Cohen and Mr. W. G. Brantley were on the brief, for appellees.

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

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Argued October 12, 1920. Decided October 18, 1920. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184. Mary L. Greer Conklin pro se. Mr. William M. Howard, with whom Mr. Jos. B. Gumming, Mr. J. C. C. Black, Mr. William H. Barrett, Mr. Bryan Cumming, Mr. C. Henry Cohen and Mr. W. G. Brantley were on the brief, for appellees.

Conklin v. Conklin, 254 U.S. 608, 65 L. Ed. 435, 41 S. Ct. 12, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1123 (1920).

Pincite

254 U.S. 608 (Conklin v. Conklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related