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.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS, 1908 — 212 U.S. 552 · caselaw · US
General
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS
212 U.S. 552·Supreme Court of the United States·1908
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
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CITY OF TYLER, TEXAS.
WRIT OP ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP TEXAS.
No. 159.
Motion to dismiss or affirm. —
Submitted October 19, 1908.
Decided October 26, 1908.
Writ of error to review 99 Texas, 491, dismissed for want of jurisdiction, there being a non-Federal ground on which the judgment rested sufficient to sustain it without regard to the Federal question, if any, involved.
Mr. Cone Johnson, Mr. Horace Chilton, Mr. Ben B. Cain and Mr. Jamas M. Edwards, for defendants in error in support of the motion.
Mr. E. B. Perkins and Mr. Hiram, Glass for plaintiffs in error. ,
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Railway Company v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556; Moran v. Horsky, 178 U. S. 205; Johnson v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300-307; Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Company, 119 U. S. 615; Eagan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188.