Radford v. Folsom
131 U.S. 392, 33 L. Ed. 203, 9 S. Ct. 792, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2045
This text of 131 U.S. 392 (Radford v. Folsom) 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
Radford v. Folsom, 131 U.S. 392, 33 L. Ed. 203, 9 S. Ct. 792, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2045 (1888).
Opinion
9 S.Ct. 792
33 L.Ed. 203
RADFORD
v.
FOLSOM.
November 26, 1888.1
H. H. Trimble and Joseph G. Anderson, for the motion.
Walter H. Smith, with whom was M. F. Sapp, contra.
[Argument of Counsel from page 393 intentionally omitted]
PER CURIAM.
This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
1
Publication delayed through failure to receive copy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
The Washington
16 F.2d 206 (Second Circuit, 1926)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
131 U.S. 392, 33 L. Ed. 203, 9 S. Ct. 792, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radford-v-folsom-scotus-1888.