DUTTON v. PLAIRET, 154 U.S. 563 (1869)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

DUTTON v. PLAIRET, 154 U.S. 563 (1869)

154 U.S. 563

WILLIAM R. DUTTON
v.
JOHN G. PLAIRET et al.
No. 184.

November 8, 1869

Mr. Chief Justice CHASE delivered the opinion of the court.

Page 154 U.S. 563, 564

The same questions substantially are presented in this case as in the case of Bronson v. Rhodes (heretofore decided at this term) 7 Wall. 229. The principles settled by that judgment require that the judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

David W. Sellers, for plaintiff in error.


U.S. Supreme Court

DUTTON v. PLAIRET, 154 U.S. 563 (1869)

 154 U.S. 563

WILLIAM R. DUTTON
v.
JOHN G. PLAIRET et al.
No. 184.

November 8, 1869

Mr. Chief Justice CHASE delivered the opinion of the court.

Page 154 U.S. 563, 564

The same questions substantially are presented in this case as in the case of Bronson v. Rhodes (heretofore decided at this term) 7 Wall. 229. The principles settled by that judgment require that the judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

David W. Sellers, for plaintiff in error.

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.