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) ]
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) ]
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
