UNDERHILL v. HERNDON, 154 U.S. 574 (1870)

U.S. Supreme Court

UNDERHILL v. HERNDON, 154 U.S. 574 (1870)

154 U.S. 574

ISAAC UNDERHILL
v.
JOHN M. HERNDON.
No. 197.

April 30, 1870

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.

This is a suit in ejectment against Underhill, in the court below,

Page 154 U.S. 574, 575

to recover possession of the S. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4, and the S. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4, section 26, township 27 N., range 13 W.

The opinion in the case of Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, disposes of all the questions raised and decided in this case in the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

B. C. Cook, for plaintiff in error.

Conway Robinson, for defendant in error.


U.S. Supreme Court

UNDERHILL v. HERNDON, 154 U.S. 574 (1870)

154 U.S. 574

ISAAC UNDERHILL
v.
JOHN M. HERNDON.
No. 197.

April 30, 1870

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.

This is a suit in ejectment against Underhill, in the court below,

Page 154 U.S. 574, 575

to recover possession of the S. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4, and the S. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4, section 26, township 27 N., range 13 W.

The opinion in the case of Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, disposes of all the questions raised and decided in this case in the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

B. C. Cook, for plaintiff in error.

Conway Robinson, for defendant 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.