RICHARDS
v.
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1902-04-21
No. 220
186 U.S. 479 Supreme Court of the United States (1902) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

[*479] Per Curiam.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368 ; Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 598; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695; Cornell v. Green, 163 U. S. 75; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; and see Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, 102 Fed. Rep. 508; Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, 179 U. S. 686; Richards v. Elevator Company, 158 U. S. 299; 159 U. S. 477.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 185 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. 1950)
    …n & M. R. R., 1 Cir., 1917, 239 F. 97. But cf. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. v. Louisville Trust Co., 1899, 174 U.S. 552, 19 S.Ct. 872, 43 L.Ed. 1081; Walters v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., C.C.D.Neb. 1900, 104 F. 377, affirmed per curiam, 1902, 186 U.S. 479, 22 S.Ct. 941, 46 L.Ed. 1266. Nor do we think it important whether the combination is a merger or consolidation, but see Atlantic Coastline R. Co. v. Dunning, 4 Cir., 1908, 166 F. 850, 855, or whether the charter was issued to natural persons or to…
  • Kendall v. Am. Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1905)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw