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.
RAYMOND, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CHICAGO EDISON COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; SAME v. SOUTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; SAME v. PEOPLE'S GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY, 1907 — 207 U.S. 42 · caselaw · US
General
RAYMOND, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CHICAGO EDISON COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; SAME v. SOUTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; SAME v. PEOPLE'S GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY; SAME v. CHICAGO CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY
207 U.S. 4252 L. Ed. 90·Supreme Court of the United States·1907
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
RAYMOND, COUNTY TREASURER, v. CHICAGO EDISON COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAME v. SOUTH CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. SAME v. PEOPLE’S GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY. SAME v. CHICAGO CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY.
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
Nos. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.
Argued April 8, 9, 1907.
Decided October 21, 1907.
Decided on the authority of Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Company, ante, p. 20..
Argued simultaneously with No. 115.
For names of counsel see'ante, pp. 29, 33;
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Peckham]
Mr. Justice Peckham
delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases involve the same principle as that already decided in No. 115, ante, p. 20, and although the facts .differ somewhat in the various cases, yet they present substantially the same questions, and the judgment in each case is therefore
Affirmed.