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.
WASHINGTON MARKET COMPANY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1890 — 137 U.S. 62 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
WASHINGTON MARKET COMPANY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
137 U.S. 6234 L. Ed. 572·Supreme Court of the United States·1890
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
WASHINGTON MARKET COMPANY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
No. 10.
Submitted October 21, 1890.
Decided October 27, 1890.
The court dismisses without costs to either party an appeal, the subject matter of which has been settled elsewhere, leaving only the disposition of costs involved.
In equity. The case is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
This is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing the bill of complaint filed by appellant therein, the object of the bill having been to restrain the defendants from selling, or attempting to sell, certain property of complainant, on account of certain assessments for street improvements, and also to cancel and annul two tax lien certificates therein named,; and counsel for appellant having stated in open court that such assessments and lien certificates have been, pending this appeal, quashed and annulled at law by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and that only the disposition of costs is involved herein, it is ordered that said appeal be
Mr. William Birney for appellant.
Mr. George G. Hazelton and Mr. S. T. Thomas for appellee.
Dismissed without costs to either party.