Texas & P. R. v. Bloom

60 F. 979, 9 C.C.A. 300, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 30, 1894
DocketNo. 191
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 F. 979 (Texas & P. R. v. Bloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Texas & P. R. v. Bloom, 60 F. 979, 9 C.C.A. 300, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146 (5th Cir. 1894).

Opinion

McCOBMICK, Circuit Judge.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss this writ of error we do not consider well taken, and it is refused.

The substantial issues pressed by the plaintiff in error have been fully litigated by it in recent cases in the state courts. Railway Co. v. Johnson, 76 Tex. 421, 13 S. W. 463; Railway Co. v. Overheiser, 76 Tex. 437, 13 S. W. 468; Railway Co. v. Griffin, 76 Tex. 441, 13 S. W. 471. On the authority of these cases, as affirmed by the supreme court of the United States in Railway Co. v. Johnson, in their opinion delivered January 3, 1894 (14 Sup. Ct. 250), the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

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

Related

Dent v. United States
76 P. 455 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. 979, 9 C.C.A. 300, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-p-r-v-bloom-ca5-1894.