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.
The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emma F. Nash, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Everett Nash, Deceased, 1917 — 242 U.S. 619 · caselaw · US
General
The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emma F. Nash, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Everett Nash, Deceased
242 U.S. 619·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 421.
The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emma F. Nash, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Everett Nash, Deceased.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota.
Argued December 5, 1916.
Decided January 8, 1917.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment reversed with costs upon -the authority of Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, 180. See Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Cousins, 241 U. S. 641. Mr. William H. Bremner and Mr. Frederick M. Miner for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Humphrey Barton for the defendant in error.