MILLS v. JOHNSON, 215 U.S. 590 (1909)
U.S. Supreme Court
MILLS v. JOHNSON, 215 U.S. 590 (1909)
215 U.S. 590
MRS. EMMA G. MILLS, and her husband, Harry Mills, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
MRS. M. E. V. JOHNSON and husband, L. A. Johnson, J. H. H. Burk, at al.
No. 36.
Supreme Court of the United States
December 13, 1909
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and R. S. Neblett for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Richard Mays, Robert E. Prince, and W. S. Simpkins for defendants in error.
Per Curiam:
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Beale v. Johnson, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 119, 99 S.W. 1045; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 53 L. Ed. 417, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 112, 53 L. Ed. 431, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U.S. 432, 53 L. Ed. 269, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 146; Cox v. Texas, 202 U.S. 446, 50 L. Ed. 1099, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78, 49 L. Ed. 394, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405, 48 L. Ed. 239, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148.
U.S. Supreme Court
MILLS v. JOHNSON, 215 U.S. 590 (1909)
MRS. EMMA G. MILLS, and her husband, Harry Mills, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
MRS. M. E. V. JOHNSON and husband, L. A. Johnson, J. H. H. Burk, at al.
No. 36.
Supreme Court of the United States
December 13, 1909
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and R. S. Neblett for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Richard Mays, Robert E. Prince, and W. S. Simpkins for defendants in error.
Per Curiam:
Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Beale v. Johnson, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 119, 99 S.W. 1045; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 53 L. Ed. 417, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 112, 53 L. Ed. 431, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U.S. 432, 53 L. Ed. 269, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 146; Cox v. Texas, 202 U.S. 446, 50 L. Ed. 1099, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78, 49 L. Ed. 394, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405, 48 L. Ed. 239, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148.
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.