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.
General
Lottie R. Russell, Appellant, v. Benjamin Russell et al.
200 U.S. 613·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. 307.
Lottie R. Russell, Appellant, v. Benjamin Russell et al.
[MAJORITY — Per. Curiam.]
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted January 8, 1906.
Decided January 15, 1906.
Mr. John H. Hazelton and Mr. John G. Carlisle for appellant. Mr. Walter H. Bacon and Mr. Robert H. McCarter for ap-pellees.
Per. Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Colorado Central Mining Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Press Publishing Company v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105; Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691; Continental National Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 119; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Company, 191 U. S. 526.