Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway v. Lightheiser

212 U.S. 560
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 4, 1909
DocketNos. 221, 222, and 223
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 U.S. 560 (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway v. Lightheiser) 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
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway v. Lightheiser, 212 U.S. 560 (1909).

Opinion

212 U.S. 560

29 S.Ct. 688

53 L.Ed. 652

PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
GEORGE W. LIGHTHEISER. NO 141. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. THOMAS COLLINS. NO 142. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM R. ROSS. NO 178. Supreme Court of the United States December 7, 1908 Mr. Allen Zollars for plaintiff in error. Mr. Stewart T. McConnell for defendants in error. djQ Per Curiam: Writs of error severally dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. 175 U. S. 348, 44 L. ed. 192, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightheiser, 168 Ind. 438, 78 N. E. 1033; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Collins, 168 Ind. 467, 80 N. E. 415; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Ross, 169 Ind. 3, 80 N. E. 845. Clevenger v. Chaney [29SCt688,212US562,53LEd652] 29 S.Ct. 688 212 U.S. 562 53 L.Ed. 652 E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. ALLEN CHANEY. NO 221. E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. JAMES D. LYLE. NO 222. E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. EMILY M. NICHOLS. NO 223.

Nos. 221, 222, and 223

December 14, 1908.

Messrs. E. E. Clevenger and Cook Danford for appellant.

Mr. A. H. Mitchell for appellees.

Per Curiam: Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Applications for Certiorari denied. Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U. S. 89, 52 L. ed. 116, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 32.

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

Related

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck
88 N.E. 627 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 U.S. 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburgh-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railway-v-lightheiser-scotus-1909.