Skip to content


Valdes Vs. Munich - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number212 U.S. 568
AppellantValdes
RespondentMunich
Excerpt:
.....(1909) u.s. supreme court valdes v. munich, 212 u.s. 568 (1909) 212 u.s. 568 ramon valdes, plaintiff in error, v. ventura munich no. 457. ramon valdes, plaintiff in error, v. o. m. wood no. 473. ramon valdes, plaintiff in error, v. maria venega perianes no. 474. supreme court of the united states february 1, 1909 page 212 u.s. 568, 569 messrs. f. kingsbury curtis, john g. carlisle, and henry a. stickney for plaintiff in error. mr. willis sweet for defendants in error. per curiam: writs of error dismissed for want of jurisdictional amounts. act of april 12, 1900, chap. 191, 31 stat. at l. 77, 34, 35; act of march 2, 1901, chap. 812, 31 stat. at l. 953, 3; royal ins. co. v. martin, 192 u.s. 149, 159 .....
Judgment:
VALDES v. MUNICH - 212 U.S. 568 (1909)
U.S. Supreme Court VALDES v. MUNICH, 212 U.S. 568 (1909)

212 U.S. 568

RAMON VALDES, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
VENTURA MUNICH
No. 457.

RAMON VALDES, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
O. M. WOOD

No. 473.

RAMON VALDES, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
MARIA VENEGA PERIANES

No. 474.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 1, 1909

Page 212 U.S. 568, 569

Messrs. F. Kingsbury Curtis, John G. Carlisle, and Henry A. Stickney for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Willis Sweet for defendants in error.

Per Curiam: Writs of Error dismissed for want of jurisdictional amounts. Act of April 12, 1900, chap. 191, 31 Stat. at L. 77, 34, 35; act of March 2, 1901, chap. 812, 31 Stat. at L. 953, 3; Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U.S. 149, 159 , 48 S. L. ed. 385, 388, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Ortega v. Lara, 202 U.S. 339 , 50 L. ed. 1055, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 707; Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U.S. 80 , 50 L. ed. 942, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561; Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U.S. 64, 73 , 51 S. L. ed. 369, 376, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224.


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