Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Granville Stuart, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel T. Hauser et al.
203 U.S. 585·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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. 60.
Granville Stuart, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel T. Hauser et al.
Argued November 15, 1906.
Decided December 3, 1906.
Mr. George B. Colby and Mr. Charles W. Dayton for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. M. Stockslager and Mr. W. E. Borah for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52; Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 155; Erie Railroad Company v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695; Cornell v. Creen, 163 U. S. 75; Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. S. 113; Gableman v. Peoria &c. Railway Company, 179 U. S. 335; City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Company, 142 U. S. 79; Beals v. Cone, 188 U. S. 184; Speed v. McCarthy, 181 U. S. 269. Case below, 9 Idaho, 53.