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.
STEEVER v. RICKMAN, 1883 — 154 U.S. 678 · caselaw · US
General
STEEVER v. RICKMAN
154 U.S. 67827 L. Ed. 1052·Supreme Court of the United States·1883
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
STEEVER v. RICKMAN.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.
No. 67.
Argued December 4 and 5, 1883.
Decided December 17, 1883.
Affirmed on the facts.
Mr. William Stone Abert, Mr. West Steever and Mr. Sterling B. Toney for appellant.
Mr. W. O. Dodd for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
If all that _is charged in this bill were true, there could be no doubt of the right of the appellant to the relief she asks, as well on account of the actual as constructive fraud of the appellee. But the answer, which is under oath, is as emphatic and -direct in its denials as the bill is in its charges. There is no disputed question of law. The only controversy is as to the facts. The testimony is voluminous and it would serve no useful purpose to discuss it in an opinion. It is sufficient so say that we are entirely satisfied with the conclusion reached by the Circuit Court.
Decree affirmed.