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.
THOMPSON v. PERRINE, 1883 — 154 U.S. 677 · caselaw · US
General
THOMPSON v. PERRINE
154 U.S. 677·Supreme Court of the United States·1883
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
THOMPSON v. PERRINE.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
No. 76.
A rgued January 10 and 11, 1883.
Decided January 22, 1883.
Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589, followed.
Mr. F. N. Bangs and Mr. Timothy F. Brush for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William M. Evarts, Mr. James K. Hill and Mr. H. T. Wing for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan]
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the eoiirt.
This case is controlled by the decision just made in case No. 76 between the same parties. The judgment is affirmed.