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.
Ferdinand Siegel et al., Appellants, v. S. L. Swarts, Trustee, 1902 — 187 U.S. 638 · caselaw · US
General
Ferdinand Siegel et al., Appellants, v. S. L. Swarts, Trustee
187 U.S. 638·Supreme Court of the United States·1902
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. 438.
Ferdinand Siegel et al., Appellants, v. S. L. Swarts, Trustee.
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Motion to dismiss.
Submitted December 1, 1902.
Decided December 8, 1902.
Mr. Edward C. Eliot for the appellants. Mr. David Goldsmith for the appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Appeal dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Bogy v. Daugherty, 184 U. S. 696; Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130; Keystone Manganese and Iron Company v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91.