U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo

Supreme Court

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo

292 U.S. 611, 54 S. Ct. 858

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 28, 1934·No. No. 978; No. 979; No. 980; No. 981; No. 982·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flannagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 317; American Ry. Express Co. v. Ken[612]*612tucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273; Comer v. Washington, ante, p. 610. Mr. Ray Martin for appellants in Nos. 978, 979, and 980. Mr. Harold W. Fraser for appellant in No. 981.

Mr. U. G. Denman for appellants in No. 982. Messrs. Ralph W. Doty and Earl F. Boxell for appellees.

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

Per Curiam:

The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flannagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 317; American Ry. Express Co. v. Ken[612]*612tucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273; Comer v. Washington, ante, p. 610. Mr. Ray Martin for appellants in Nos. 978, 979, and 980. Mr. Harold W. Fraser for appellant in No. 981.

Mr. U. G. Denman for appellants in No. 982. Messrs. Ralph W. Doty and Earl F. Boxell for appellees.

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo, 292 U.S. 611, 54 S. Ct. 858 (1934).

Pincite

292 U.S. 611 (U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related