GUFFEY v. SMITH, 237 U.S. 120 (1915)
U.S. Supreme Court
GUFFEY v. SMITH, 237 U.S. 120 (1915)
237 U.S. 120
JOSEPH F. GUFFEY et al., Petitioners,
v.
SUSANNAH SMITH et al.
No. 87.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 2 and 3, 1914
April 5, 1915
Messrs. Joseph W. Bailey, J. H. Beal, and Robert J. Dodds for petitioners.
Mr. Jay A. Hindman for respondents.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is, in all material respects, like that of Guffey v. Smith, just decided [237 U.S. 101, 59 L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526]. The two cases were argued together, and the views expressed in that are decisive of this.
The decrees below are reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court, with like directions as in that case.
Decree reversed.
U.S. Supreme Court
GUFFEY v. SMITH, 237 U.S. 120 (1915)
JOSEPH F. GUFFEY et al., Petitioners,
v.
SUSANNAH SMITH et al.
No. 87.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 2 and 3, 1914
April 5, 1915
Messrs. Joseph W. Bailey, J. H. Beal, and Robert J. Dodds for petitioners.
Mr. Jay A. Hindman for respondents.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is, in all material respects, like that of Guffey v. Smith, just decided [237 U.S. 101, 59 L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526]. The two cases were argued together, and the views expressed in that are decisive of this.
The decrees below are reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court, with like directions as in that case.
Decree reversed.
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.
