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.
Spalding v. Watertown, 1889 — 130 U.S. 327 · caselaw · US
General
Spalding v. Watertown
130 U.S. 327·Supreme Court of the United States·1889
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
Spalding v. Watertown,
No. 201.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Argued March 13, 1889.
Decided April 8, 1889.
Mr. George P, Miller for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. George W. Bird and Mr. Daniel Hall for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Bradley.]
Mr. Justice Bradley.
This ease is precisely like the one just considered, and judgment of affirmance must be rendered in this also.
Affirmed.