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 MoreALLEN v. SOUTHERN PAC R CO(1899)
No. 144 Argued: Decided: April 3, 1899 There was a stipulation that the purchaser should have a right to enter…
Read MoreALLEN v. SMITH(1899)
No. 168 Argued: Decided: March 6, 1899 Letters testamentary were issued to William F. Collins, Ogden Smith, and M. Elizabeth…
Read MoreAINSA v. NEW MEXICO & A. R. CO.(1899)
Argued: Decided: October 30, 1899 See same case below, 36 Pac. 213. The facts are stated in the opinion. On…
Read MoreADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. v. U. S.(1899)
No. 51 Argued: Decided: December 4, 1899 This proceeding was commenced in behalf of the United States, under the so-called…
Read MoreABBOT v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE(1899)
No. 376 Argued: Decided: December 11, 1899 Messrs. John H. Mitchell and W. C. Sharpstein for plaintiff in error. Messrs.…
Read MoreBENJAMIN v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS(1898)
No. 188 Argued: Decided: January 31, 1898 J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for appellant. Branch K. Miller, for appellee.…
Read More
