ST. LOUIS SMELTING & REFINING CO. v. RAY, 104 U.S. 657 (1881)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
ST. LOUIS SMELTING & REFINING CO. v. RAY, 104 U.S. 657 (1881)104 U.S. 657 104 U.S. 657
St. Louis Smelting & Refining
Co.
v.
RAY
October Term, 1881
NOTE.-Smelting Company v. Ray, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, was argued at the same time as the preceding case, and by the same counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Thomas M. Patterson for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD remarked that, as it presented the same questions there determined, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented.[ St. Louis
Smelting & Refining Co. v. Ray 104 U.S. 657 (1881) ]
Opinions
v.
RAY October Term, 1881 NOTE.-Smelting Company v. Ray, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, was argued at the same time as the preceding case, and by the same counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Thomas M. Patterson for the defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE FIELD remarked that, as it presented the same questions there determined, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented.[ St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Ray 104 U.S. 657 (1881) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
ST. LOUIS SMELTING & REFINING CO. v. RAY, 104 U.S. 657 (1881) 104 U.S. 657 104 U.S. 657 St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.v.
RAY October Term, 1881 NOTE.-Smelting Company v. Ray, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, was argued at the same time as the preceding case, and by the same counsel for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Thomas M. Patterson for the defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE FIELD remarked that, as it presented the same questions there determined, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented.[ St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Ray 104 U.S. 657 (1881) ]
Search This Case
