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
SHINE v. FOX BROTHERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY
216 U.S. 609·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
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
SHINE v. FOX BROTHERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATICS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 383.
Motion to dismiss submitted February 21, 1910.
Decided March 7, 1910.
A direct appeal from the Circuit Court dismissed without opinion for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal from 150 Fed. Rep. 357, dismissed.
The motion to dismiss was made on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the jurisdiction of the court below rested on the diversity of citizenship of the parties, and no constitutional or other question was properly presented in the court below so as to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon this court.
Mr. Shepard Barclay, Mr. Thomas T. Fauntleroy, and Mr. Cornelius H. Fauntleroy for the appellants.
Mr. Herbert Ii. Marlatt, Mr. George S. Johnson, Mr. George M. Block and Mr. Frank H. Sullivan for. the appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
In the circumstances disclosed by this record we are of opinion .that a direct appeal does not lie to this court from the decree of the Circuit Court, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.