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.
WINDSOR v. McVEIGH, 1875 — 154 U.S. 617 · caselaw · US
Corporations
WINDSOR v. McVEIGH
154 U.S. 617·Supreme Court of the United States·1875
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
WINDSOR v. McVEIGH.
ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OP THE CITY OP ALEXANDRIA.
No. 583.
Submitted April 9, 1875.
Decided May 3, 1875.
Gregory v. Me VeigJi, 23 Wall. 294, followed.
Motion to dismiss.
Mr. S. F. Beach for plaintiff in error.
Mr. P. Phillips and Mr. John Howard for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice]
Mr. Chief Justice
Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The motion to dismiss this writ of error was submitted with a similar motion in Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, just decided. In the argument, counsel on both sides have treated the two cases as though they were in all respects identical.
We, therefore, deny the motion for the reasons assigned in the other case. Denied.