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
Milburn Gin and Machine Company v. German Bank
173 U.S. 701·Supreme Court of the United States·1899
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. 342.
Milburn Gin and Machine Company v. German Bank.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
Motions to dismiss or affirm.
Submitted January 30, 1899.
Decided February 27, 1899.
Mr. C. W. Metcalf for motions. Mr. William M. Randolph opposing.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed on the authority of Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188, and other cases.