Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.

Supreme Court

Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.

242 U.S. 609, 37 S. Ct. 16, 61 L. Ed. 525, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1399

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 16, 1916

DocketNo. 67 and No. 95

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 U.S. 609 (Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply 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

Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co., 242 U.S. 609, 37 S. Ct. 16, 61 L. Ed. 525, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1399 (1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

No ground is stated to support the motion to pass these cases other than the fact that the continuance asked for is assented to by the counsel for both parties. But as the cases were called last term and this is therefore the second term at which they are subject to call, under Rule 19 the mere consent of counsel without otherwise adequate showing is insufficient to justify the granting of the motion to pass and it is therefore denied, without prejudice, however, to the right to renew the same upon the making of a proper showing. Mr. Frank F. Reed, Mr. Francis M. Phelps, Mr. Edward S. Rogers and Mr. Frederick P. Fish for The Hart Steel Company et al. Mr. Taylor E. Brown, Mr. C. C. Linthicum and Mr. Clarence E. Mehlhope for The Railroad Supply Company.

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

Per Curiam.

No ground is stated to support the motion to pass these cases other than the fact that the continuance asked for is assented to by the counsel for both parties. But as the cases were called last term and this is therefore the second term at which they are subject to call, under Rule 19 the mere consent of counsel without otherwise adequate showing is insufficient to justify the granting of the motion to pass and it is therefore denied, without prejudice, however, to the right to renew the same upon the making of a proper showing. Mr. Frank F. Reed, Mr. Francis M. Phelps, Mr. Edward S. Rogers and Mr. Frederick P. Fish for The Hart Steel Company et al. Mr. Taylor E. Brown, Mr. C. C. Linthicum and Mr. Clarence E. Mehlhope for The Railroad Supply Company.

Robert E. Quesinberry, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen S. Quesinberry, Deceased v. Life Insurance Company of North America, and Citibank Individual Banking Group Accident Plan, Robert E. Quesinberry, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen S. Quesinberry, Deceased v. Life Insurance Company of North America, and Citibank Individual Banking Group Accident Plan

987 F.2d 1017 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)

Quesinberry v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

987 F.2d 1017 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)

United States v. Jose Mario Martinez

333 F.2d 80 (Second Circuit, 1964)

A. Schrader's Son, Inc. v. Dill Mfg. Co.

262 F. 504 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 U.S. 609, 37 S. Ct. 16, 61 L. Ed. 525, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-steel-co-v-railroad-supply-co-scotus-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack