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.
Allison Manchester, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; Allison Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; and Emma Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford, 1916 — 241 U.S. 649 · caselaw · US
General
Allison Manchester, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; Allison Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; and Emma Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford
241 U.S. 649·Supreme Court of the United States·1916
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. 863.
No. 864.
No. 865.
Allison Manchester, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; Allison Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford; and Emma Manchester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford.
In error to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut.
Argued April 12, 1916.
Decided April 17, 1916.
Mr. Edward H. Rogers, Mr. Birdsey E. Case and Mr. Edward D. Robbins for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Edward M. Day and Mr. Alvan Waldo Hyde for the defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with costs upoñ the authority of Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 160; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 367-369; Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry., 208 U. S. 598; Union Lime Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 233 U. S. 211, 218-219; O’Neill v. Leamer, 239 U. S. 244, 253; Mount Vernon Cotton Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 240 U. S. 30, 32.