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.
George Nester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank E. Church, 1903 — 189 U.S. 505 · caselaw · US
General
George Nester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank E. Church
189 U.S. 505·Supreme Court of the United States·1903
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. 179.
George Nester et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank E. Church.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan.
Argued February 27, 1903.
Decided March 2, 1903.
Mr. Timothy E. Tarsney for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Frank E. Robson for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Castillos. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674.