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.
Thorp v. Bonnifield, 1897 — 168 U.S. 703 · caselaw · US
General
Thorp v. Bonnifield
168 U.S. 703·Supreme Court of the United States·1897
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. 270.
Thorp v. Bonnifield.
Certificate- from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit-.
Submitted May 24, 1897.
Decided October 18, 1897.
Mr. John M. Thurston for plaintiff in error.
Mr. E. S. Pillshury for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The question whether the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction of this case answered in the'negative on the authority of Aztec Mining Company v. Ripley, 151 U. S. 79, and Steamer Coquitlam v. United States, 163 U. S. 346.