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
Stellwagen v. Tucker
144 U.S. 54836 L. Ed. 537·Supreme Court of the United States·1892
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
Stellwagen v. Tucker.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
No. 217.
Argued March 15, 16, 1892.
Decided April 11, 1892.
Mr. O. J. Hillyer and Mr. J. H. Ralston for appellants.
Mr. JEppa Hunton and Mr. Henry Wise Garnett for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Field.]
Mr. Justice Field.
The facts of this ease are similar to those iu No. 216, just decided, and the same principles of law control its disposition. A similar decree of reversal with directions must be entered, the form of the decree to he adapted to the changed interest caused by the death of one of the parties pending the suit.
Ordered accordingly.