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.
ATHERTON v. FOWLER, 1875 — 154 U.S. 620 · caselaw · US
General
ATHERTON v. FOWLER
154 U.S. 620·Supreme Court of the United States·1875
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
ATHERTON v. FOWLER.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE STATE OE CALIFORNIA.
No. 648.
Submitted November 16,1876.
Decided December 6, 1875.
Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, followed.
Mr. M. Blair for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. M. A. Wheaton for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The motion to dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction is denied for the reasons stated in the opinion just read, Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143. The cases are in all material respects identical. Motion denied.