Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc.

278 U.S. 564, 49 S. Ct. 35, 73 L. Ed. 508, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 344
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 29, 1928·No. No. 45·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The writ of error is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question on. the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr; 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147.

Messrs. C. V. Parker and Joéeph A. Lovet for defendants in error.

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

Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc., 278 U.S. 564, 49 S. Ct. 35, 73 L. Ed. 508, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 344 (1928).

278 U.S. 564 (Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Baton Rouge Rice Mill, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Environmental Quality Council
753 P.2d 1038 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1988)
Long v. Carolina Baking Co.
8 S.E.2d 326 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1939)
Grimsley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
1 S.E.2d 157 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1939)
Temple v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co.
163 S.E. 644 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Powe v. A.C.L.R. R. Co.
159 S.E. 473 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)