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.
Francis Stephen Medcraf, Appellant, v. Robert T. Hodge, as Sheriff of King County, Washington, 1917 — 245 U.S. 630 · caselaw · US
General
Francis Stephen Medcraf, Appellant, v. Robert T. Hodge, as Sheriff of King County, Washington
245 U.S. 630·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 49.
Francis Stephen Medcraf, Appellant, v. Robert T. Hodge, as Sheriff of King County, Washington.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.
Argued November 14, 15, 1917.
Decided November 19, 1917.
Mr. Cassius E. Gates and Mr. W. B. Stratton for appellant.
Mr. Alfred C. Lundin and Mr. H. M. Caldwell for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70, 77; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 328, 329.