Wagner Tug Boat Co. v. Meagher

Supreme Court

Wagner Tug Boat Co. v. Meagher

287 U.S. 657, 53 S. Ct. 120

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 14, 1932

DocketNo. 433

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 287 U.S. 657 (Wagner Tug Boat Co. v. Meagher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wagner Tug Boat Co. v. Meagher, 287 U.S. 657, 53 S. Ct. 120 (1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition for writ of certiorari in this cause is denied upon the ground that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is joint and the record fails to disclose summons and [658]*658severance. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn, 285 U. S. 169; Capital National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 286 U. S. 550; Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Hanson, ante, p. 599; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Parker, ante, p. 569.

Messrs. Walter L. Clark, Roszél C. Thomsen, and Stephen V. Carey for petitioner. Mr. Winter S. Martin for respondent.

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

The petition for writ of certiorari in this cause is denied upon the ground that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is joint and the record fails to disclose summons and [658]*658severance. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn, 285 U. S. 169; Capital National Bank v. Board of Supervisors, 286 U. S. 550; Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Hanson, ante, p. 599; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Parker, ante, p. 569.

Messrs. Walter L. Clark, Roszél C. Thomsen, and Stephen V. Carey for petitioner. Mr. Winter S. Martin for respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 U.S. 657, 53 S. Ct. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-tug-boat-co-v-meagher-scotus-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack