United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker

Supreme Court

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker

235 U.S. 683, 35 S. Ct. 201

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 26, 1914·No. No. 302·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of [684]*684(1) First National Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341, 346; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589; May v. Illinois, 232 U. S. 720; (2) McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 326, 334; City of Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 234 U. S. 751.

Mr. Charles Martindale for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Frank S. Roby and Mr.-Ward H. Watson 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 [684]*684(1) First National Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341, 346; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589; May v. Illinois, 232 U. S. 720; (2) McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 326, 334; City of Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 234 U. S. 751.

Mr. Charles Martindale for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Frank S. Roby and Mr.-Ward H. Watson for the defendant in error.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker, 235 U.S. 683, 35 S. Ct. 201 (1914).

Pincite

235 U.S. 683 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related