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.
Pedro Perea et al., Administrators, etc., Appellants, v. Guadalupe Perea de Harrison et al., 1904 — 195 U.S. 623 · caselaw · US
General
Pedro Perea et al., Administrators, etc., Appellants, v. Guadalupe Perea de Harrison et al.
195 U.S. 623·Supreme Court of the United States·1904
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. 45.
Pedro Perea et al., Administrators, etc., Appellants, v. Guadalupe Perea de Harrison et al.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.
Motion to dismiss submitted October 17, 1904.
Decided October 24, 1904.
Mr. T. B. Catron for appellants.
Mr, W. B. Childers for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Company, 145 U. S. 608; Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354; Haseltine v. Bank, 183 U. S. 130.