United States ex rel. Huidekoper v. Macon County Court

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

United States ex rel. Huidekoper v. Macon County Court

51 F. 883, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1837

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedSeptember 13, 1892

DocketNo. 120

StatusPublished

This text of 51 F. 883 (United States ex rel. Huidekoper v. Macon County Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Huidekoper v. Macon County Court, 51 F. 883, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1837 (circtedmo 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Thayer, District judge.

As the questions which arise in this case are the same which the court had occasion to consider and determine on the 29th of June, 1891, in the eastern division of this district, in the case of U. S. v. Knox Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 880, (No. 1,188,) a copy of the opinion in that case is herewith appended, to be filed in the suit at bar. It expresses substantially the reasons which have influenced the court to enter a judgment in favor of the respondents, and to overrule the motion for a new trial. It may not be out of place to add that the views urged by the relator’s attorneys in this case, as well as in the Davis Case, were urged before the supreme court [884]*884by Messrs. T. K. Skinker and Joseph Shippen in the briefs filed by them in the ease of U. S. v. County Court, 144 U. S. 568, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921. Although no mention is made in the opinion of the supreme court of the questions thus presented and discussed, yet it must be presumed that they were considered and determined adversely to the relator.

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

Thayer, District judge.

As the questions which arise in this case are the same which the court had occasion to consider and determine on the 29th of June, 1891, in the eastern division of this district, in the case of U. S. v. Knox Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 880, (No. 1,188,) a copy of the opinion in that case is herewith appended, to be filed in the suit at bar. It expresses substantially the reasons which have influenced the court to enter a judgment in favor of the respondents, and to overrule the motion for a new trial. It may not be out of place to add that the views urged by the relator’s attorneys in this case, as well as in the Davis Case, were urged before the supreme court [884]*884by Messrs. T. K. Skinker and Joseph Shippen in the briefs filed by them in the ease of U. S. v. County Court, 144 U. S. 568, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921. Although no mention is made in the opinion of the supreme court of the questions thus presented and discussed, yet it must be presumed that they were considered and determined adversely to the relator.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 F. 883, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-huidekoper-v-macon-county-court-circtedmo-1892.