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.
AMERICAN RAILROAD COMPANY OF PORTO RICO v. DE CASTRO, 1907 — 210 U.S. 440 · caselaw · US
General
AMERICAN RAILROAD COMPANY OF PORTO RICO v. DE CASTRO
210 U.S. 44051 L. Ed. 1187·Supreme Court of the United States·1907
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
AMERICAN RAILROAD COMPANY OF PORTO RICO v. DE CASTRO.
error to the district court of the united states for the DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO.
No. 467.
Argued January 14, 1907.
Decided February 25, 1907.
Decided on the authority of American Railroad Company v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Frederick McKenney, with whom Mr. Francis H. Deleter and Mr. John Spalding Flannery were on thé' brief, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Frederic L. Cornwell for defendant in error submitted.
This case should have been reported immediately after American Railroad Co. v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453, but was inadvertently omitted.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is similar in character to that of American Railroad Co. v. Julio P. Castro, No. 151, this (1906) term, just decided (204 U. S. 453), having been brought to recover for damages resulting from injuries sustained by the wife in the same accident which occasioned the death of the daughter Eloísa. The right of this court in the case at bar to review a judgment for the plaintiffs below, entered upon the verdict of a jury, is based upon an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court similar to that which was made in No. 151. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case the writ of error in this case must also be
Dismissed.