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.
Central Ohio Railroad Company (as reorganized) v. Mahoney, 1901 — 183 U.S. 694 · caselaw · US
General
Central Ohio Railroad Company (as reorganized) v. Mahoney
183 U.S. 694·Supreme Court of the United States·1901
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. 76.
Central Ohio Railroad Company (as reorganized) v. Mahoney.
Submitted November 27, 1901.
Decided December 9, 1901.
Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., and Mr. J. H. Collins for the railroad company. Mr. Thomas Ewing Steele for Mahoney.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
On a, certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Per Curiam.
Question certified answered in the negative, on the authority of Gableman v. Peoria Railway Company, 179 U. S. 335.