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.
Ada Elmira Hirst Van Syckel et al., Appellants, v. Juan Jose Arsuaga et al., Partners as Sobrinos de Ezquiaga et al., 1911 — 220 U.S. 601 · caselaw · US
General
Ada Elmira Hirst Van Syckel et al., Appellants, v. Juan Jose Arsuaga et al., Partners as Sobrinos de Ezquiaga et al.
220 U.S. 601·Supreme Court of the United States·1911
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. 83.
Ada Elmira Hirst Van Syckel et al., Appellants, v. Juan Jose Arsuaga et al., Partners as Sobrinos de Ezquiaga et al.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico. Argued March 7, 1911.
Decided March 13, 1911.
Mr. Charles F.JCarusi and Mr. Francis H. Dexter for the appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. R. R. Co. v. Express Co., 108 U. S. 24, 28; Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 179 U. S. 641, 644; Covington v. First Nat. Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 277; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 429. Mr. George H. Lamar and Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill for the appellants.