HAYES v. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO., 249 U.S. 591 (1919)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

HAYES v. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO. , 249 U.S. 591 (1919)

249 U.S. 591

Webb C. HAYES, plintiff in error,
v.
The HOCKING VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 388.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 28, 1919

Page 249 U.S. 591, 592

Mr. Chas. A. Seiders, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John F. Wilson, of Columbus, Ohio, and Lloyd T. Williams, of Toledo, Ohio (Messrs. Wilson & Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, and Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 100, 25 S. Sup. Ct. 727; Empire State- Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U.S. 225, 232, 27 S. Sup. Ct. 476; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 79, 29 S. Sup. Ct. 580; Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216, 218, 35 S. Sup. Ct. 285.


U.S. Supreme Court

HAYES v. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO. , 249 U.S. 591 (1919)

249 U.S. 591

Webb C. HAYES, plintiff in error,
v.
The HOCKING VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 388.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 28, 1919

Page 249 U.S. 591, 592

Mr. Chas. A. Seiders, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John F. Wilson, of Columbus, Ohio, and Lloyd T. Williams, of Toledo, Ohio (Messrs. Wilson & Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, and Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 100, 25 S. Sup. Ct. 727; Empire State- Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U.S. 225, 232, 27 S. Sup. Ct. 476; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 79, 29 S. Sup. Ct. 580; Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216, 218, 35 S. Sup. Ct. 285.

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.