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.
Property · MBE-tested
NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. VILES
154 U.S. 60822 L. Ed. 409·Supreme Court of the United States·1874
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
NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. VILES.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
No. 70.
Argued and submitted November 17 and 18, 1874.
Decided December 7, 1874.
Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 21 Wall. 317, followed.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Strong]
Mr. Justice Strong
delivered the opinion of the court.
The errors assigned in this case are the same as those which were considered in the case of these plaintiffs against Clough and wife, just decided, except that some assigned in that case have riot been assigned in this. The rejection of Turner’s deposition, and the admission of the captain’s declarations to Mrs. Clough are the only matters now brought to our attention. We need add nothing to what we have said in the former case. The same reasons that required the reversal of the judgment obtained by Clough and his wife require the reversal of this judgment. Indeed the error here is more apparent. It does not appear that the conversation of the captain with Mrs. Clough occurred before the plaintiff left the boat, and before the relation as a passenger to the defendants or to the captain had ceased. In fact, the contrary appears.
Mr. John W. Gary and Mr. J. P. G. Cottrell for plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. H. Carpenter for defendant in error.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and a venire de novo is directed. Reversed.