Sanger v. New York

Supreme Court

Sanger v. New York

251 U.S. 537, 40 S. Ct. 55

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 17, 1919·No. No. 75·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) California Powder Works v¿ Davis, 151 U. ,S. 389, 393; Sayward v. [538]*538Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 86. (2) Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664; and see El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. Carraway, 245 U. S. 643. Mr. Jonah J. Goldstein for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry G. Anderson, with whom Mr. Harry E. Lewis was on the brief, for defendant in error.

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

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) California Powder Works v¿ Davis, 151 U. ,S. 389, 393; Sayward v. [538]*538Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 86. (2) Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664; and see El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. Carraway, 245 U. S. 643. Mr. Jonah J. Goldstein for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry G. Anderson, with whom Mr. Harry E. Lewis was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Sanger v. New York, 251 U.S. 537, 40 S. Ct. 55 (1919).

Pincite

251 U.S. 537 (Sanger v. New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related