Skip to content


Northern Securities Co. Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number191 U.S. 555
AppellantNorthern Securities Co.
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
northern securities co. v. united states - 191 u.s. 555 (1903) u.s. supreme court northern securities co. v. united states, 191 u.s. 555 (1903) northern securities company v. united states no. 277 submitted november 16, 1903 decided november 30, 1903 191 u.s. 555 appeal from the united states circuit court for the district of minnesota syllabus motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae denied. the chief justice: in support of this motion, certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. when the motion was submitted,.....
Judgment:
Northern Securities Co. v. United States - 191 U.S. 555 (1903)
U.S. Supreme Court Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555 (1903)

Northern Securities Company v. United States

No. 277

Submitted November 16, 1903

Decided November 30, 1903

191 U.S. 555

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Syllabus

Motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae denied.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: In support of this motion, certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the Court to determine. When the motion was submitted, objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.

Where, in a pending case, application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other

Page 191 U. S. 556

pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the Court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 17; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 491; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected by the decision of this case, as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed and consent has not been given.

Leave to file must therefore be

Denied.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //