Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Gilbert, Receiver, v. Washington Beneficial Endowment Association, 1899 — 173 U.S. 701 · caselaw · US
General
Gilbert, Receiver, v. Washington Beneficial Endowment Association
173 U.S. 701·Supreme Court of the United States·1899
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 90.
Gilbert, Receiver, v. Washington Beneficial Endowment Association.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued January 24 and 25, 1899.
Decided March 6, 1899.
Mr. Thomas M. Fields and Mr. Henry D. Hotchkiss for appellant. Mr. A. A. Lipscomb, Mr. S. F. Phillips, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, Mr. James E. Padgett and Mr. Edwin Forrest for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed on the authority of Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company, 146 U. S. 536, and cases cited.