CHICAGO, R I & P R CO v. CAMPBELL, 174 U.S. 718 (1899)

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, R I & P R CO v. CAMPBELL, 174 U.S. 718 (1899)

174 U.S. 718

CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
v.
CAMPBELL.
No. 235.

May 22, 1899

W. F. Evans and M. A. Low, for plaintiff in error.

Page 174 U.S. 718, 719

Mr. Justice McKENNA.

The facts of this case are substantially the same as in No. 236 ( Railway Co. v. Strum, 19 Sup. Ct. 979), except as to the amount involved, and the court in which the proceedings in attachment were commenced, and the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, R I & P R CO v. CAMPBELL, 174 U.S. 718 (1899)

 174 U.S. 718

CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
v.
CAMPBELL.
No. 235.

May 22, 1899

W. F. Evans and M. A. Low, for plaintiff in error.

Page 174 U.S. 718, 719

Mr. Justice McKENNA.

The facts of this case are substantially the same as in No. 236 ( Railway Co. v. Strum, 19 Sup. Ct. 979), except as to the amount involved, and the court in which the proceedings in attachment were commenced, and the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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.