Peacock v. Reinecke

271 U.S. 643, 46 S. Ct. 481
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 26, 1926·No. No. 266·Published

Opinion

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; Toop v. Ulysses Land Company, 237 U. S. 580, 583; United Security Company v. American Fruit Produce Company, 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v, United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Power & Light Com[644] pany v. Town of Graham, 263 U. S. 193, 195.

Mr. Herbert Pope, with whom Messrs. James F. Forstall and E. Barrett Prettyman were on the brief, for appellant. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Mr. Sewall Key were on the brief, for appellee.

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

Peacock v. Reinecke, 271 U.S. 643, 46 S. Ct. 481 (1926).

271 U.S. 643 (Peacock v. Reinecke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Farrell v. O'Brien
199 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1905)
Goodrich v. Ferris
214 U.S. 71 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Toop v. Ulysses Land Co.
237 U.S. 580 (Supreme Court, 1915)
United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co.
238 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Sugarman v. United States
249 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Berkman v. United States
250 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Anderson v. Corall
263 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1923)