BACHTEL v. WILSON, 204 U.S. 42 (1907)

Opinions

Syllabus
Case

Syllabus
Case

U.S. Supreme Court

BACHTEL v. WILSON, 204 U.S. 42 (1907)

204 U.S. 42
CORWIN D. BACHTEL, Plff. in Err.,
v.
R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio.
No. 447.

HARVEY H. MILLER, Plff. in Err.,
v.
R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio.
No. 448.
WILLIAM L. DAVIS, Plff. in Err.,
v.
R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio.
No. 449.
CHARLES H. VAN HORN, Plff. in Err.,
v.
R. FRANK WILSON, Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio.
No. 450.

Nos. 447, 448, 449, 450.
Argued November 14, 15, 1906.
Decided January 7, 1907.

Mr. William A. Lynch for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Charles C. Upham and John W. Craine for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The same question controls these cases as the one just decided, and, for the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, they are dismissed.[ Bachtel v. Wilson 204 U.S. 42 (1907) ]

U.S. Supreme Court

BACHTEL v. WILSON, 204 U.S. 42 (1907)

Nos. 447, 448, 449, 450.
Argued November 14, 15, 1906.
Decided January 7, 1907.

Mr. William A. Lynch for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Charles C. Upham and John W. Craine for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The same question controls these cases as the one just decided, and, for the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, they are dismissed.[ Bachtel v. Wilson 204 U.S. 42 (1907) ]

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.