Ricordi v. John Church Co.

114 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4914

This text of 114 F. 1023 (Ricordi v. John Church Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ricordi v. John Church Co., 114 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4914 (circtsdny 1902).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I cannot see that the law as to jurisdiction is any better settled than it was when this court decided National Button Works v. Wade (C. C.) 72 Fed. 298. Whatever qualification of the broad statements of the opinion in Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 659, 14 Sup. Ct 221. 37 L. Ed. 1211. was supposed to be found in Railroad Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496, 14 Sup. Ct. 401, 38 L. Ed. 248, cannot any longer be accepted as settled, since In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 229, 16 Sup. Ct. 273, 40 L. Ed. 402. Within the language of the Hohorst opinion, this court has jurisdiction. Motion for preliminary injunction is granted.

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

Related

In Re Hohorst
150 U.S. 653 (Supreme Court, 1893)
In Re Keasbey & Mattison Co.
160 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court, 1895)
National Button Works v. Wade
72 F. 298 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 F. 1023, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricordi-v-john-church-co-circtsdny-1902.