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.
Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. Williams et al.; and Williams et al. v. Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al., 1937 — 302 U.S. 651 · caselaw · US
General
Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. Williams et al.; and Williams et al. v. Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al.
302 U.S. 651·Supreme Court of the United States·1937
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. 268.
No. 269.
Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. Williams et al.; and Williams et al. v. Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al.
Decided November 22, 1937.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
On certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Messrs. Armwell L. Cooper and Frederick H. Wood for Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. et al., and Messrs. Henry M. Channing and Barton Cornean for Moses Williams et al.
Per Curiam:
The motion to bring up the entire record and cause is denied. Upon examination of the certificate, the certificate is dismissed. Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216, 221; Biddle v. Luvisch, 266 U. S. 173; Smith v. Ajax Pipe Line Co., 298 U. S. 641; Dixie Terminal Co. v. United States, 298 U. S. 645.
Reported below: 15 F. Supp. 938.