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.
The Arizona Eastern Railroad Company and Epes Randolph and L. H. Manning, its Sureties, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. N. Bryan, 1917 — 242 U.S. 621 · caselaw · US
General
The Arizona Eastern Railroad Company and Epes Randolph and L. H. Manning, its Sureties, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. N. Bryan
242 U.S. 621·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 651.
The Arizona Eastern Railroad Company and Epes Randolph and L. H. Manning, its Sureties, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. N. Bryan.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.
Motion to dismiss or affirm or place on the summary docket submitted January 9,1917.
Decided January 15, 1917.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of (1) Chicago Junction Railway Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, ante, 169; (2) Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Earnest, 229 U. S. 114, 121-122. Mr. Eugene S. Ives for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Thomas Armstrong, Jr., Mr. Ernest W. Lewis and Mr. G. P. Bullard for the defendant in error.