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.
BURKE v. TREGRE, 1879 — 154 U.S. 641 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BURKE v. TREGRE
154 U.S. 64138 L. Ed. 1090·Supreme Court of the United States·1879
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
BURKE v. TREGRE.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
No. 253.
Submitted April 23, 1879.
Decided May 5, 1879.
Burke v. Jtilteiiberger, 19 Wall. 579, followed.
The finding of the Supreme Court of the State as to the suspension of General Orders Nos. 60 and 70 is sustained by the evidence.
Mr. George S. Lacey for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Thomas L. Bayne for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justicie Waite]
Mr. Chief Justicie Waite
announced the judgment of the court.
The only Federal question presented for our consideration in this case not decided adversely to the present appellant in Burke, v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 579, is that which relates to the effect of General Orders Nos. 60 and 70 upon the judicial sale under which the appellees claim. As to these orders it was found as a fact by the Supreme Court of the Htate that they were suspended by a special permit allowing the sale to be made, and we think this finding is sustained by the evidence. Judgment affirmed,.