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.
SEIBERT v. UNITED STATES ex rel. HARSHMAN, 1889 — 129 U.S. 192 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
SEIBERT v. UNITED STATES ex rel. HARSHMAN
129 U.S. 19232 L. Ed. 645·Supreme Court of the United States·1889
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
SEIBERT v. UNITED STATES ex rel. HARSHMAN.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 130.
Submitted December 18, 1888.
Decided January 21, 1889.
Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284, was very carefully and elaborately considered, and is adhered to.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. E. John Ellis, Mr. John Johns and Mr. D. A. Mo-Knight for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Clinton Rowell for defendant m error.
[MAJORITY — Me. Justice Field]
Me. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the court.
^ The facts of this case are similar to those in Seibert v. Lewis, before the court at its October term, 1886, 122 U. S. 284, and it is admitted-by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision there, if adhered to, will control here. He, however, as.ks us to reconsider our rulings and reverse our former judgment. We see no reason to justify such reconsideration and change of position. The very elaborate argument of counsel is but a re-presenta.tion of the reasons originally offered against the decision in that and analogous cases. Seibert v. Lewis was very carefully and elaborately considered, and to the doctrines there announced we adhere. Upon its authority
The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.