CHICAGO, B & Q R CO v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 258 (1897)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, B & Q R CO v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 258 (1897)

166 U.S. 258

CHICAGO. B. & Q. R. CO.
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO.
No. 130.

March 1, 1897

John J. Herrick, for plaintiff in error.

John S. Miller, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding for condemnation under the constitution and laws of Illinois similar to the one just disposed of.

For the reasons stated in the above case (No. 129, 17 Sup. Ct. 581), the judgment of the supreme court of Illinois is affirmed.

 


U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, B & Q R CO v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 258 (1897)

 166 U.S. 258

CHICAGO. B. & Q. R. CO.
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO.
No. 130.

March 1, 1897

John J. Herrick, for plaintiff in error.

John S. Miller, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding for condemnation under the constitution and laws of Illinois similar to the one just disposed of.

For the reasons stated in the above case (No. 129, 17 Sup. Ct. 581), the judgment of the supreme court of Illinois is 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.