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.
NORTH CAROLINA MINING COMPANY v. WESTFELDT, 1909 — 215 U.S. 586 · caselaw · US
General
NORTH CAROLINA MINING COMPANY v. WESTFELDT
215 U.S. 586·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
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
NORTH CAROLINA MINING COMPANY v. WESTFELDT.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OR APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 580.
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 8, 1909.
Decided November 15, 1909.
An appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals (166 Fed. Rep. 706) dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the authority of prior decisions.
Cause below heard before Fuller, Circuit Justice, and Morris and Brawley, District Judges, composing the court, and decree rendered January. 12, 1909, 166 Fed. Rep. 706; petition for rehearing denied February 4, 1909; application for certiorari denied April 19, 1909, 214 U. S. 516; application to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Waddill, McDowell and Keller, District Judges, sitting, for allowance of appeal denied May 13, 1909; appeal granted June 12, 1909, by Goff, Circuit Judged and motion to set aside that order denied August 21, 1909/ Goff, Circuit Judge, stating: “I find myself impelled to the conclusion that the disposition by the Supreme Court of a motion to dismiss said appeal, will under the circumstances now' existing best protect the interests of all the parties hereto, and .will also settle a question of practice concerning which there is at this time doubt and confusion.”
Mr. Joseph J. Hooker, Mr. James H. Merrimon, Mr. Hannis Taylor and Mr. Charles A. Moore for the appellant.
Mr. Julius C. Martin^Mr. Alfred S. Barnard and Mr. F. A. Sondley for the appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288; Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 58; In re Winn, 213 U. S. 458; In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490.