SELDEN v. MONTAGUE, 194 U.S. 153 (1904)

U.S. Supreme Court

SELDEN v. MONTAGUE, 194 U.S. 153 (1904)

194 U.S. 153

WILLIAM S. SELDEN, William H. Anderson, and Clarence B. Gilpin, Appts.,
v.
ANDREW J. MONTAGUE, Governor of Virginia; David Q. Eggleston, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Morton Marye, Auditor of Public Accounts of Virginia, et al.
No. 190.
 
Argued April 4, 5, 1904.
Decided April 25, 1904.

Mr. John S. Wise for appellants.

Messrs. William A. Anderson and Frank W. Christian for appellees.

Page 194 U.S. 153, 154

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit in equity brought to obtain by injunction the same relief as was sought in the preceding case. The facts and conditions are substantially similar, and for the reasons there given the appeal will be dismissed without costs to either party.


U.S. Supreme Court

SELDEN v. MONTAGUE, 194 U.S. 153 (1904)

 194 U.S. 153

WILLIAM S. SELDEN, William H. Anderson, and Clarence B. Gilpin, Appts.,
v.
ANDREW J. MONTAGUE, Governor of Virginia; David Q. Eggleston, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Morton Marye, Auditor of Public Accounts of Virginia, et al.
No. 190.
 
Argued April 4, 5, 1904.
Decided April 25, 1904.

Mr. John S. Wise for appellants.

Messrs. William A. Anderson and Frank W. Christian for appellees.

Page 194 U.S. 153, 154

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit in equity brought to obtain by injunction the same relief as was sought in the preceding case. The facts and conditions are substantially similar, and for the reasons there given the appeal will be dismissed without costs to either party.

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.