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
Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas Newell
198 U.S. 579·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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. 493.
Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas Newell.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 10, 1905.
Decided April 17, 1905.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 311; Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, 540; Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 653; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 96; Railroad Company v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445, 450; Railroad Company v. Barron, 5 Wall. 104; Ill. Stat., 3 Starr and Curtis, 3247, c. 114, par. 53; Railway Company v. Hart, 209 Illinois, 414; Glenn v. Garth, 147. U. S. 368; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216. Case below, 72 N. E. Rep. 416.
Mr. George W. Kretzinger for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Harvey Lantz for defendant in error.