Seibert v. United States ex Rel. Harshman, 129 U.S. 192 (1889)

U.S. Supreme Court

Seibert v. United States ex Rel. Harshman, 129 U.S. 192 (1889)

Seibert v. United States ex Rel. Harshman

No. 130

Submitted December 18, 1889

Decided January 21, 1889

129 U.S. 192

Syllabus

Siebert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284, was very carefully and elaborately considered, and is adhered to.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 129 U. S. 193

U.S. Supreme Court

Seibert v. United States ex Rel. Harshman, 129 U.S. 192 (1889)

Seibert v. United States ex Rel. Harshman

No. 130

Submitted December 18, 1889

Decided January 21, 1889

129 U.S. 192

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

Siebert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284, was very carefully and elaborately considered, and is adhered to.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 129 U. S. 193

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.

The facts of this case are similar to those in Seibert v. Lewis, before the Court at its October term, 1886, 122 U. S. 284, and it is admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision there, if adhered to, will control here. He, however, asks us to reconsider our rulings and reverse our former judgment. We see no reason to justify such reconsideration and change of position. The very elaborate argument of counsel is but a re-presentation of the reasons originally offered against the decision in that and analogous cases. Seibert v. Lewis was very carefully and elaborately considered, and to the doctrines there announced we adhere. Upon its authority,

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

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.