No. 88 Argued: Decided: April 12, 1900 On March 26 a motion was made for leave to file the following…
Read MoreAVERY v. POPPER(1900)
No. 72 Argued: Decided: December 3, 1900 This was an action originally instituted in the district court of Hunt county,…
Read MoreAUSTIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE(1900)
No. 25 Argued: Decided: November 19, 1900 The facts are stated in the opinion. This was a writ of error…
Read MoreARNOLD v. HATCH(1900)
No. 183 Argued: March 14, 1900Decided: April 9, 1900 This was an intervening petition by the defendant in error, Lewis…
Read MoreAPACHE COUNTY v. BARTH(1900)
No. 181 Argued: Decided: April 30, 1900 In September, 1891, Jacob Barth commenced an action in one of the district…
Read MoreAMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO v. STATE OF LOUISIANA(1900)
No. 38 Argued: Decided: November 5, 1900 This was a petition filed in the civil district court for the parish…
Read MoreAMERICAN EXP CO v. MAYNARD(1900)
No. 220 Argued: November 9, 1899Decided: April 16, 1900 The Attorney General of the State of Michigan on the relation…
Read MoreALDRICH v. CHEMICAL NAT BANK(1900)
No. 58 Argued: October 20, 1899Decided: March 5, 1900 Messrs. F. W. Oldham and John W. Herron for appellant. Messrs.…
Read MoreADIRONDACK R CO v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK(1900)
No. 439 Argued: Decided: February 26, 1900 This is a writ of error to a judgment of the court of…
Read MoreADAMS v. COWEN(1900)
No. 113 Argued: Decided: April 16, 1900 On November 16, 1891, the respondents, trustees for the wife and children of…
Read MoreBROWN v. HITCHCOCK(1899)
No. 581 Argued: Decided: April 3, 1899 After alleging the invalidity of these proceedings, the bill goes on to aver…
Read MoreBOARD OF COM’RS OF GUNNISON COUNTY, COLO. v. E. H. ROLLINS & SONS(1899)
No. 178 Argued: Decided: February 20, 1899 John F. Dillon and E. F. Richardson, for respondent. T. C. Brown and…
Read MoreBAUSMAN v. DIXON(1899)
No. 197 Argued: Decided: February 20, 1899 Frederick Bausman, in pro. per. John E. Humphries and Edward P. Edsen, for…
Read MoreBARDES v. FIRST NAT BANK OF HAWARDEN, IOWA(1899)
No. 429 Argued: Decided: December 22, 1899 Messrs. C. A. Brandenburg, William F. Lohr, Henry C. Gardiner, Frederick W. Lohr,…
Read MoreBALTIMORE & O R CO v. JOY(1899)
No. 129 Argued: Decided: February 20, 1899 Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the…
Read MoreAUTEN v. U S NAT BANK OF NEW YORK(1899)
No. 206 Argued: Decided: April 24, 1899 The complaint contains the necessary jurisdictional allegations, and that ‘on December 7, 1892,…
Read MoreATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. v. MATTHEWS(1899)
No. 147 Argued: Decided: April 17, 1899 Robert Dunlap and E. D. Kenna, for plaintiff in error. * State Report…
Read MoreARKANSAS BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N v. MADDEN(1899)
No. 68 Argued: Decided: December 4, 1899 By an act of the state of Texas approved April 3, 1889 (Tex.…
Read MoreANGLO-CALIFORNIAN BANK v. U S(1899)
No. 31 Argued: Decided: October 30, 1899 Mr. William Pinkney Whyte for appellant. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt and Mr. Felix…
Read MoreAMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. v. HALL(1899)
No. 226 Argued: Decided: April 24, 1899 In March, 1896, the American Refrigerator Transit Company, a corporation organized under laws…
Read More
