RAYMOND v. CHICAGO EDISON CO
207 U.S. 42 (1907)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

RAYMOND v. CHICAGO EDISON CO, 207 U.S. 42 (1907)

207 U.S. 42

SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. CHICAGO EDISON COMPANY. SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. SOUTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. PEOPLE'S GASLIGHT & COKE COMPANY. SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY. SAMUEL B. RAYMOND, County Treasurer, etc., Appts., v. CHICAGO CONSOLIDATED TRACTION Company. Nos. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 8, 9, 1907. October 21, 1907

Messrs. David K. Tone, James Hamilton Lewis, Harry A. Lewis, William F. Struckmann, William H. Stead, and George B. Gillespie for appellants. Mr. Frank L. Shepard also for appellants in Nos. 116, 117, 120, 121. Mr. Edward J. Brundage also for appellants in No. 117. Messrs. William G. Beale, Gilbert E. Porter, Buell Mckeever, and Waldo F. Tobey for the Chicago Edison Company. Mr. John P. Wilson for the Chicago City Railway Company. Messrs. John S. Miller and Merritt Starr for the South Chicago City Railway Company. Mr. James F. Meagher for the People's Gaslight & Coke Company. Messrs. William G. Beale, Charles S. Holt, and William P. Sidley for the Chicago Telephone Company. Messrs. William W. Gurley, Isaac M. Jordan, Arthur Dyrenforth, and Howard M. Carter for the Chicago Consolidated Traction Company.

Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opinion of the court: These cases involve the same principle as that already decided in No. 115 [207 U.S. 20, 52 L. ed.-, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7], and although the facts differ somewhat in the various cases, yet they present substantially the same questions, and the judgment in each case is therefore affirmed.[ Raymond v. Chicago Edison Co 207 U.S. 42 (1907) ]

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.