United Railways Co. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis

Supreme Court

United Railways Co. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis

241 U.S. 647

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 10, 1916·No. Nos. 365 and 367; No. 366; No. 368; No. 369; No. 370; No. 371; No. 372·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. Mc[648] Cafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; (3) Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78; Chicago Dock Co. v. Fraley, 228 U. S. 680; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123, 143; St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U. S. 350, 366.

No. 366. No. 368. No. 369. No. 370. No. 371. No. 372.

In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Henry S. Priest for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Truman P. Young and Mr. Charles H. Danes for the 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) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. Mc[648] Cafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; (3) Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78; Chicago Dock Co. v. Fraley, 228 U. S. 680; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123, 143; St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U. S. 350, 366.

No. 366. No. 368. No. 369. No. 370. No. 371. No. 372.

In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. Henry S. Priest for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Truman P. Young and Mr. Charles H. Danes for the defendant in error.

United Railways Co. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 241 U.S. 647 (1916).

Pincite

241 U.S. 647 (United Railways Co. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related