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.
CONNELLSVILLE AND SOUTHERN PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD v. BALTIMORE, 1867 — 154 U.S. 553 · caselaw · US
General
CONNELLSVILLE AND SOUTHERN PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD v. BALTIMORE
154 U.S. 55338 L. Ed. 1087·Supreme Court of the United States·1867
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
CONNELLSVILLE AND SOUTHERN PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD v. BALTIMORE.
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 413.
Argued April 26, 1867.
Decided April 29, 1867.
The appellant was a proper party defendant in the court helow, and duly took his appeal.
The order assigning the case for hearing at this term is rescinded.
Motion to dismiss. The ease is stated in the opinion.
Mr. John Knox, Mr. Andrew Stewart and Mr. J. S. Black for appellants.
Mr. J. II. B. Latrobe, Mr. B. Johnson and Mr. J. L. Thomas, Jr., for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Chase]
Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the court.
We have considered the motion to dismiss the appeal of the Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Company, and, are of opinion that that company was a proper party defendant in the court below and the appeal in the record appears to have been taken by this defendant as well as by the others. We must therefore overrule the motion to dismiss.
We have also further considered the motion to rescind the order heretofore made assigning the matter for hearing at this term, and have come to the conclusion that the order should be rescinded. And it is So directed.