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.
HEARST v. HALLIGAN, 1881 — 154 U.S. 669 · caselaw · US
General
HEARST v. HALLIGAN
154 U.S. 66926 L. Ed. 715·Supreme Court of the United States·1881
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
HEARST v. HALLIGAN.
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 6.
Submitted November 14, 1881.
Decided December 5, 1881.
Affirmed on the facts.
Mr. Jacob Klein, Mr. Samuel Knox and Mr. W. M. Stewart for appellant.
Mr. T. W. B. Crews for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan]
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the court.
A very thorough examination of the record and the printed arguments in this ease fails to disclose any difficult question of fact or of law. We are entirely satisfied with the conclusions reached by the Circuit Judge, and with the reasons given in support thereof. All the relief to which the appellant was entitled, under the evidence, was accorded to him by the final decree. We are not sure but that the court might have gone farther, and adjudged that, as to a material portion of appellant’s cause of action, the statute of limitations of Missouri constituted a complete defence.
No further opinion will be delivered. The decree is affirmed.