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.
Joseph Henry Bash, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William Howald, 1917 — 244 U.S. 648 · caselaw · US
General
Joseph Henry Bash, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William Howald
244 U.S. 648·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 657.
Joseph Henry Bash, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William Howald.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.
Motion to dismiss submitted June 4, 1917:
Decided June 11, 1917.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, 105; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 55; In re Delgado, 140 U. S. 586, 588.
Mr. P. C. Simons for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. J. B. Ferguson for defendant in error.