Home/Supreme Court/Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of Providence

Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of Providence

251 U.S. 535, 40 S. Ct. 55, 64 L. Ed. 401, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1809
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 17, 1919
DocketNo. 183; No. 184; No. 185
StatusPublished

This text of 251 U.S. 535 (Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of Providence) 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
Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of Providence, 251 U.S. 535, 40 S. Ct. 55, 64 L. Ed. 401, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1809 (1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173; Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 418; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19; and see Collard v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 246 U. S. 653. Petitions for certiorari denied. Mr. Robert H. McCarter, Mr. J. Jerome Hahn, Mr. Francis I. McCanna and Mr. Alfred G. Chaffee for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Albert A. Baker and Mr. Elmer S. Chace for defendants in error.

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

Related

Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield
183 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1901)
Schlosser v. Hemphill
198 U.S. 173 (Supreme Court, 1905)
Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works
237 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Bruce v. Tobin
245 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Collard v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
246 U.S. 653 (Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 U.S. 535, 40 S. Ct. 55, 64 L. Ed. 401, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joslin-manufacturing-co-v-city-of-providence-scotus-1919.