Uhle v. Burnham
42 F. 1, 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2097
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided April 14, 1890·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
It seems unnecessary to add anything to tbe full discussion of the questions raised on this motion which will be found in [2] Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 3, (by Judge Brewer,) and Burck v. Taylor, 39 Fed. Rep. 581, (by Judge Maxey.) The motion to remand is denied. See, also, First Nat. Bank v. Merchants’ Bank, 37 Fed. Rep. 657.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Uhle v. Burnham, 42 F. 1, 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2097 (circtsdny 1890).
42 F. 1 (Uhle v. Burnham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Louisville & N. R. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
218 F. 91 (E.D. Kentucky, 1914)
State ex rel. City of Dexter v. Gordon
158 S.W. 683 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
189 F. 220 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1911)
Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co.
148 F. 308 (S.D. New York, 1906)
Illinois Central R. R. v. Whitworth
73 S.W. 766 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1903)
Foulk v. Gray
120 F. 156 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia, 1902)
Whitworth v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
107 F. 557 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky, 1901)
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Sundry Ins. Cos.
108 F. 451 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1901)
Alley v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.
64 F. 903 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan, 1894)