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.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SIDES, 1913 — 231 U.S. 213 · caselaw · US
Administrative
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SIDES
231 U.S. 21358 L. Ed. 189·Supreme Court of the United States·1913
Mu. Justice Hughes dissents. · -' Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice. Pitney took no part in the decision.
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
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SIDES.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
No. 683.
Submitted October 14, 1913.
Decided December 1, 1913.
Decided on the authority of Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Snow, ante, p. 204.
133 Pac. Rep. 1040, reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion
Mr. N. H. Loomis, Mr. C. C. Dorsey and Mr. E. I. Thayer for plaintiff in error.
Mr: Milton Smith, Mr. Charles R. Brock and Mr. W. H. ' Ferguson for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice McKenna]
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the court.
Action in ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, called here plaintiff, .against defendants in error, here called defendants, in the District Court of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado.
Except’ as to the description of the land the complaint is substantially the same as that in No. 682 and presents the same legal rights and titles. Defendant Sides demurred to the complaint-; Scherrer denied-being in possession of the land and disclaimed any claim to it. The demurrer was overruled and Scherrer answered, setting up defenses which are in substance the same as in No. 682. To the defenses plaintiff filed demurrers, which were abstained. Sides elécted to plead no further and the case coming on for trial and certain facts being agreed upon as testified to, objection to the materiality of which was made, motions to dismiss and for judgment were also made and overruled. Judgment was entered for plaintiff. It was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State, for the reasons stated in its opinion in Snow v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., that is, No. 682, ante, p. 204, 133 Pac. Rep. 1040.
This. case was submitted with No. 682, involves the same questions and is determined by its decision.-
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Mu. Justice Hughes dissents.
-' Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice. Pitney took no part in the decision.