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.
NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 1903 — 191 U.S. 555 · caselaw · US
Securities
NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY v. UNITED STATES
191 U.S. 55548 L. Ed. 299·Supreme Court of the United States·1903
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
NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT POR THE DISTRICT OP MINNESOTA.
No. 277.
Submitted November 16, 1903.
Decided November 30, 1903.
Motion for leave to file brief as amicus curias denied.
Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for Mr. Charles Fish Beach, applicant.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice:]
The Chief Justice:
In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. When the motion was submitted objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.
Where in a pending case application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to '.allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 17; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 491; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected.by the decision of this case; as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed; and consent has not been given.
Leave to file must, therefore, be
Denied.