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.
W. J. Warder et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William C. Cotton and Walter B. Grant, Executors, 1907 — 207 U.S. 582 · caselaw · US
General
W. J. Warder et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William C. Cotton and Walter B. Grant, Executors
207 U.S. 582·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
No. 47.
W. J. Warder et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. William C. Cotton and Walter B. Grant, Executors.
In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
Submitted November 11, 1907.
Decided November 18, 1907.
Mr. A. Seymour Thurmond for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. B. Grant for defendants in error»
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Writ of error dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Walter v. Loomis, 197 U. S. 619; Coloin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Company, 191 U. S. 526; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company, 168 U. S. 430; Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Company, 170 U. S. 41; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 212.