General
F. P. Seekatz, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Medina Valley Irrigation Company et al.
241 U.S. 646·Supreme Court of the United States·1916
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. 294.
F. P. Seekatz, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Medina Valley Irrigation Company et al.
In error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas..
Argued for the plaintiff in error and submitted for the defendant in error March 15 and 16, 1916.
Decided March 20, 1916.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380; (2) Mississippi & Red River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239; Mason City &c. Railroad v. Boynton, 204 U. S. 570; (3) Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 244-245; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593; Backus v. Fort Street Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 569; (4) Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112; Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry., 208 U. S. 598; O’Neill v. Leamer, 239 U. S. 244, 253-254.
Mr. C. L. Bass, Mr. T. T. VanderHoeven and Mr. Joseph W. Bailey for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Floyd McGown for the defendant in error.