MELLON v. GRAY, 274 U.S. 715 (1927)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

MELLON v. GRAY, 274 U.S. 715 (1927)

274 U.S. 715
No. 280.

Andrew W. MELLON, as Director General of Railroads, petitioner,
v.
Leah M. GRAY, Administratrix of the ESTATE OF Glen E. GRAY.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 25, 1927

Messrs. Shurtleff, Oakes & Hinkley, of Lancaster, N. H., and Charles H. Blatchford, of Portland, Me., for petitioner.

Messrs. Hollis R. Bailey, of Boston, Mass., and Murchie & Murchie, of Concord, N. H. (Messrs. Alexander Murchie and Robert C. Murchie, both of Concord, N. H., of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of Reading Company v. John L. Koons, Administrator, 271 U.S. 58, 46 S. Ct. 405.[ Mellon v. Gray 274 U.S. 715 (1927) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

MELLON v. GRAY, 274 U.S. 715 (1927)

 274 U.S. 715 
No. 280.

Andrew W. MELLON, as Director General of Railroads, petitioner,
v.
Leah M. GRAY, Administratrix of the ESTATE OF Glen E. GRAY.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 25, 1927

Messrs. Shurtleff, Oakes & Hinkley, of Lancaster, N. H., and Charles H. Blatchford, of Portland, Me., for petitioner.

Messrs. Hollis R. Bailey, of Boston, Mass., and Murchie & Murchie, of Concord, N. H. (Messrs. Alexander Murchie and Robert C. Murchie, both of Concord, N. H., of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of Reading Company v. John L. Koons, Administrator, 271 U.S. 58, 46 S. Ct. 405.[ Mellon v. Gray 274 U.S. 715 (1927) ]

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.