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.
Carpenter v. Wabash Railway Co. et al., 1939 — 308 U.S. 539 · caselaw · US
General
Carpenter v. Wabash Railway Co. et al.
308 U.S. 539·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 230.
Carpenter v. Wabash Railway Co. et al.
October 9, 1939.
Messrs. Mark D. Eagleton, Hyman G. Stein, and Roberts P. Elam for petitioner. Mr. Homer Hall for Wabash Railway Co. et al. ; Mr. Charles Nagel for Chase National Bank; and Mr. Thomas W. White for Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted, limited to the question of the right of the petitioner to intervene in order to assert priority.