Williams v. Scudder

Supreme Court

Williams v. Scudder

258 U.S. 607, 42 S. Ct. 316, 66 L. Ed. 787, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2314

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 27, 1922·No. No. 352·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. (2) Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468 470; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. [608] Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 303; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271.

Mr. Smith W. Bennett for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John G. Price and Mr. Roy Martin for defendants 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) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 195. (2) Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon, 223 U. S. 468 470; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. [608] Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 303; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271.

Mr. Smith W. Bennett for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John G. Price and Mr. Roy Martin for defendants in error.

Williams v. Scudder, 258 U.S. 607, 42 S. Ct. 316, 66 L. Ed. 787, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2314 (1922).

Pincite

258 U.S. 607 (Williams v. Scudder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related