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.
WOODMAN PEBBLING MACHINE CO. v. GUILD, 1874 — 154 U.S. 597 · caselaw · US
General
WOODMAN PEBBLING MACHINE CO. v. GUILD
154 U.S. 59721 L. Ed. 743·Supreme Court of the United States·1874
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
WOODMAN PEBBLING MACHINE CO. v. GUILD.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OR MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 311.
Submitted January 16,1874.
Decided January 19, 1874.
A judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the parties.
Mr. T. L. Wakefield for appellant.
Mr. George L. Roberts for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Clifford]
Mr. Justice Clifford
delivered the opinion of the court.
Since the appeal the parties have come to an adjustment of thé controversy, as appears by the stipulation on file.
Pursuant to that stipulation I am instructed to direct that the decree of the Circuit Court be reversed; the entry to be, that it is reversed by consent and that the cause be remanded with directions that a decree be entered in the Circuit Court for the complainant as prayed in the bill of complaint, it being stated in the mandate that the decree here is entered by consent of parties as appears by the stipulation which should be recorded in the ease.
Reversed.