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.
KENNEY, Trustee, v. EFFINGER, 1885 — 115 U.S. 577 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
KENNEY, Trustee, v. EFFINGER
115 U.S. 57729 L. Ed. 498·Supreme Court of the United States·1885
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
KENNEY, Trustee, v. EFFINGER.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME • COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE .OF ■ VIRGINIA. .
Argued November 10, 11, 1885.
Decided December 7, 1885.
A writ of error to a State court does Hot bring up for review a question of fact whether a contract was made with reference to Confederate notes.
This case was argued with the preceding case.
Mr. W..B. Compton for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Jacob B. Effinger iii_ person.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Field]
Mr. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of error brought by the trustee raises no Federal question which we can consider. Whether the bond of Effinger was - or was not executed with reference to Confederate notes is á question of fact for the State court, and not one of law for this court.
The writ is dismissed.