Skip to content


Hayes Vs. Hocking Valley R. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number249 U.S. 591
AppellantHayes
RespondentHocking Valley R. Co.
Excerpt:
..... hayes v. hocking valley r. co. , 249 u.s. 591 (1919) 249 u.s. 591 webb c. hayes, plintiff in error, v. the hocking valley railway company. no. 388. supreme court of the united states april 28, 1919 page 249 u.s. 591, 592 mr. chas. a. seiders, of toledo, ohio, for plaintiff in error. messrs. john f. wilson, of columbus, ohio, and lloyd t. williams, of toledo, ohio (messrs. wilson & rector, of columbus, ohio, and brown, geddes, schmettau & williams, of toledo, ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error. per curiam. dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of farrell v. o'brien, 199 u.s. 89, 100 , 25 s. sup. ct. 727; empire state- idaho mining co. v. hanley, 205 u.s. 225, 232 , 27 s. sup. ct. 476; goodrich v......
Judgment:
HAYES v. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO. - 249 U.S. 591 (1919)
U.S. Supreme Court HAYES v. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO. , 249 U.S. 591 (1919)

249 U.S. 591

Webb C. HAYES, plintiff in error,
v.
The HOCKING VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.
No. 388.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 28, 1919

Page 249 U.S. 591, 592

Mr. Chas. A. Seiders, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John F. Wilson, of Columbus, Ohio, and Lloyd T. Williams, of Toledo, Ohio (Messrs. Wilson & Rector, of Columbus, Ohio, and Brown, Geddes, Schmettau & Williams, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 100 , 25 S. Sup. Ct. 727; Empire State- Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U.S. 225, 232 , 27 S. Sup. Ct. 476; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71, 79 , 29 S. Sup. Ct. 580; Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216, 218 , 35 S. Sup. Ct. 285.


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