Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

Supreme Court

Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

242 U.S. 623, 37 S. Ct. 244, 61 L. Ed. 533, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1572

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 29, 1917·No. No. 378·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Mellon Company v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Pierce v. Southern Railway, 171 U. S. 641; Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, 450; Wood v. Chesbrough, 228 U. S. 672, 677; (3) Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205. Mr. Eppa Hunton, Jr., Mr. E. Randolph Williams and Mr. Henry W. Anderson for the plaintiff in error. Mr. H. R. Pollard and Mr. Henry Taylor, Jr., 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 the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Mellon Company v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Pierce v. Southern Railway, 171 U. S. 641; Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447, 450; Wood v. Chesbrough, 228 U. S. 672, 677; (3) Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205. Mr. Eppa Hunton, Jr., Mr. E. Randolph Williams and Mr. Henry W. Anderson for the plaintiff in error. Mr. H. R. Pollard and Mr. Henry Taylor, Jr., for the defendants in error.

Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 242 U.S. 623, 37 S. Ct. 244, 61 L. Ed. 533, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1572 (1917).

Pincite

242 U.S. 623 (Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related