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.
Wishkah Boom Company, Appellant, v. The United States, 1906 — 202 U.S. 613 · caselaw · US
General
Wishkah Boom Company, Appellant, v. The United States
202 U.S. 61350 L. Ed. 1171·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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. 253.
Wishkah Boom Company, Appellant, v. The United States.
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit..
Argued April 25 and 26, 1906.
Decided May 14, 1906.
Mr. Austin E. Griffiths for appellant.
The Attorney General and Mr. Milton D. Purdy-, Assistant to the Attorney General for- appellee.-.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173; United States v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866, sec. 1; United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493, 498.