-
47 So. 28 Supreme Court of Louisiana June 22, 1908 No. 17,155Not cited
Statement of the Case. NICHOLLS, J. Defendant, indicted for the murder of James Caswell, on December 1, 1906, was by the jury found guilty of manslaughter, and was sentenced by the court to hard labor in the state penitentiary for a period of 10 years. He has
-
47 So. 119 Supreme Court of Louisiana June 8, 1908 No. 17,142Not cited
Statement of the Case. NICHOLLS, J. The actual applicant for the writs sought is Mrs. Josephine Schneider, the co-relator joining in the application solely to authorize and assist his wife. In her application she alleges that she is one of the heirs of the
-
124 A.D. 916 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York January 15, 1908Not cited
Judgment and order unanimously-affirmed, with costs, No opinion.
-
171 F. 301 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York June 10, 1909
LACOMBE, Circrtit Judge (after stating the facts as above). In view of former decisions in this circuit (Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Treat [C. C.] 116 Fed. 774 ; Id., 128 Fed. 262 , 62 C. C. A. 644 ) there would be no difficulty in finding that these accumulated
-
107 N.W. 540 Supreme Court of Minnesota June 1, 1906 No. 14,851-(191)
START, O. J. Action to determine adverse claims to certain lots in the city of St. Paul. Judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant Urban Investment Company appealed. The question here to be decided is this: Do the facts found by the trial court sustain
-
108 N.W. 301 Supreme Court of Minnesota June 22, 1906 No. 14,581-(7)
LEWIS, J. Action against the county commissioners to recover $341, with interest, claimed to have been paid under the following circumstances. Appellant, being desirous of recording a warranty deed conveying to him the premises in question, presented the same
-
31 Misc. 24 City of New York Municipal Court March 15, 1900Not cited
OoMLAir, J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The action was brought to recover a certain sum as compensation for services, and the principal defense relied upon by the defendant was the Statute of Limitations. It
-
31 Misc. 797 City of New York Municipal Court March 15, 1900Not cited
Conlan, J. It is conceded that the plaintiff attempted to board an open car of the defendant, and in so doing had a fall and received injuries, but it is disputed that such accident was occasioned by the defendant’s negligence. The car was stationary and it is
-
65 N.E. 918 Indiana Supreme Court January 8, 1903 No. 19,477
On Petition eor Rehearing. Pee Cubiam. Under the petition for a rehearing counsel for appellant renew their discussion of the proposition that appellee’s complaint is not sufficient to state a cause of action, because it does not allege or show an absence of
-
74 N.Y.S. 1140 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York December 10, 1901Not cited
PER CURIAM. Motion to amend record granted, so far as to permit the affidavits which have been presented to the court relating to the proceedings before the common council to be printed in the record and made a part thereof, without determining, however, as to
-
58 S.W. 441 Court of Appeals of Kentucky September 27, 1900
Opinion of the court by CHIEF JUSTICE HAZELRIGG Reversing. The appellee is engaged in the mining business, employing more than ten men, and, although able financially to do so, failed to pay in lawful money an employe on the 16th of April, 1899, the wages
-
68 P. 968 California Supreme Court April 29, 1902 No. Sac. No. 867.
HARRISON, J. The above-named plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants, eight in number, for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon a tract of land about three hundred and fifteen acres in area. Service was made upon the defendants, and their defaults
-
49 S.E. 848 Supreme Court of South Carolina November 29, 1904
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Jones. The appeal in this case is from an order of the Circuit Court, Hon. J. H. Hudson, presiding as special Judg'e, transferring" the cause to calendar 1 for trial of issue of title by jury, the Court
-
68 P. 104 California Supreme Court March 7, 1902 No. L.A. No. 952.
VAN DYKE, J. This case comes up on the judgment-roll, without a bill of exceptions. The action is for a money demand. The complaint alleges that the defendant made and executed a promissory note, in words and figures following,—to wit:— Pasadena, Cal., February
-
163 F. 1021 Fourth Circuit February 19, 1908 No. 669Not cited
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, under rule 20 ( 150 Fed. xxxi , 79 C. C. A. xxxi ). See 140 Fed. 776 .
-
163 F. 1021 Fourth Circuit January 17, 1908 No. 779Not cited
PER CURIAM. Decree of Circuit Court reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill. Petition of appellees for appeal to the Supreme Court and order allowing appeal filed February 6, 1908. Transcript of record transmitted to the clerk of the
-
163 F. 1022 Third Circuit March 26, 1908 No. 41Not cited
PER CURIAM. Writ of error withdrawn, on motion of plaintiff in error. See 149 Fed. 406 , 79 C. C. A. 226 .
-
69 N.Y.S. 1130 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York March 27, 1901Not cited
No opinion. Order of the county court of Queens county affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
-
81 S.W. 1216 Supreme Court of Arkansas June 25, 1904
Battre, J. On the 15th day of April, 1886, L. P. Sandels executed to H. C. Ernest his promissory note for the sum of $500 and 10 per centum per annum interest thereon from date until paid. The note was made payable on or before the 15th day of April, 1888. Ernest
-
74 N.Y.S. 841 Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York October 15, 1901Not cited
SCOTT, J. The parties have agreed by stipulation that the sole question to be passed upon .on this appeal is whether the defendant was guilty of contempt for violation of the injunction contained in the order of November 16, 1891. This precludes the discussion
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.