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.
Defer v. De May, 1897 — 168 U.S. 703 · caselaw · US
General
Defer v. De May
168 U.S. 703·Supreme Court of the United States·1897
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. 52.
Defer v. De May.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan.
Argued and submitted October 20, 1897.
Decided October 25, 1897.
Mr. George William Moore for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George Gartner for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Cwriam.]
Per Cwriam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the .authority of Burlington, Cedar Rapids &c. Railway v. Simmons, 123 U. S. 52; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536, and cases cited.