THOMAS v. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED R CO, 214 U.S. 496 (1909)
U.S. Supreme Court
THOMAS v. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED R CO, 214 U.S. 496 (1909)
214 U.S. 496
GEORGE W. THOMAS, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 157.
April 26, 1909
Mr. George W. Thomas, in propria persona.
Messrs. Monroe L. Willard and Cecil Page for defendant in error.
Per Curiam:
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Stevens v. Nichols, 157 U.S. 370, 39 L. Ed. 736, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580, 37 L. Ed. 856, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103, 40 L. Ed. 91, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; A. Backus, Jr ., & Sons v. Fort Street Union Depot Co. 169 U.S. 557, 42 L. Ed. 853, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 51 L. Ed. 461, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U.S. 170, 51 L. Ed. 755, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461; Rusch v. John Duncan Land & Min. Co. 211 U.S. 526, 53 L. ed. --, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172.
U.S. Supreme Court
THOMAS v. SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED R CO, 214 U.S. 496 (1909)
GEORGE W. THOMAS, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
SOUTH SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 157.
April 26, 1909
Mr. George W. Thomas, in propria persona.
Messrs. Monroe L. Willard and Cecil Page for defendant in error.
Page 214 U.S. 496, 497
Per Curiam:
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Stevens v. Nichols, 157 U.S. 370, 39 L. Ed. 736, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640; Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580, 37 L. Ed. 856, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103, 40 L. Ed. 91, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; A. Backus, Jr ., & Sons v. Fort Street Union Depot Co. 169 U.S. 557, 42 L. Ed. 853, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 51 L. Ed. 461, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U.S. 170, 51 L. Ed. 755, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461; Rusch v. John Duncan Land & Min. Co. 211 U.S. 526, 53 L. ed. --, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172.
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.