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.
Ignacio Rosales y Cueli, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dolores Moya y Rodriguez, Guardian, etc., et al., 1905 — 198 U.S. 581 · caselaw · US
General
Ignacio Rosales y Cueli, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dolores Moya y Rodriguez, Guardian, etc., et al.
198 U.S. 581·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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. 431.
Ignacio Rosales y Cueli, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dolores Moya y Rodriguez, Guardian, etc., et al.
In error to the District Court of the United States for. the District of Porto Rico. •
Motion to dismiss submitted April 24, 1905.
Decided May 29, 1905.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Royal Insurance Company v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149; Railroad Company v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210; Filhis v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 108; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Louisville, 166 U. S. 709; Harrison v. Morton, 171 U. S. 38.
Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, Mr. Wayne MacVeagh and Mr. J. S. Flannery for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George H. Lamar for defendants in error.