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.
Edward D. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Elizabeth Thomas, 1905 — 197 U.S. 621 · caselaw · US
General
Edward D. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Elizabeth Thomas
197 U.S. 621·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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. 312.
Edward D. Johnson et al., Appellants, v. Elizabeth Thomas.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Motion to dismiss submitted February 20, 1905.
Decided February 27, 1905.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Lubin v. Edison, 195 U. S. 625; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 235; Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130. Case below, 23 App. D. C. 141. Mr. D. W. Baker and Mr. Wm. Robert Andrews in support of motion. Mr. S. Herbert Ciesy in opposition thereto.