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
Arthur Hirsh et al., Appellants, v. J. W. Taylor et al., etc.
225 U.S. 698·Supreme Court of the United States·1912
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. 841.
Arthur Hirsh et al., Appellants, v. J. W. Taylor et al., etc.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the .Southern District of West Virginia.
Submitted May 27, 1912.
Decided June 10, 1912.
Mr. John H. Holt for the appellants. Mr. C. W. Campbell and Mr. Douglas W. Brown for the appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Fore River Ship Building Co. v. Haag, 219 U. S. 175; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225; Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523. Cause remanded to the District-Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia.