Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, & St. Louis Railway v. Lightheiser, Nos. 221, 222, and 223 (1909)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: Nos. 221, 222, and 223 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 04, 1909
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 212 U.S. 560 29 S. Ct. 688 53 L. Ed. 652 PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. GEORGE W. LIGHTHEISER. NO 141. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. THOMAS COLLINS. NO 142. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM R. ROSS. NO 178. Supreme Court of the United States December 7, 1908 Mr. Allen Zollars for plaintiff in error. Mr. Stewart T. McConnell for d
More

212 U.S. 560

29 S. Ct. 688

53 L. Ed. 652

PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
GEORGE W. LIGHTHEISER. NO 141. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. THOMAS COLLINS. NO 142. PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM R. ROSS. NO 178. Supreme Court of the United States December 7, 1908 Mr. Allen Zollars for plaintiff in error. Mr. Stewart T. McConnell for defendants in error. djQ Per Curiam: Writs of error severally dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. 175 U.S. 348, 44 L. ed. 192, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightheiser, 168 Ind. 438, 78 N.E. 1033; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Collins, 168 Ind. 467, 80 N.E. 415; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Ross, 169 Ind. 3, 80 N.E. 845. Clevenger v. Chaney [29SCt688,212US562,53LEd652] 29 S. Ct. 688 212 U.S. 562 53 L. Ed. 652 E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. ALLEN CHANEY. NO 221. E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. JAMES D. LYLE. NO 222. E. E. CLEVENGER, Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, v. EMILY M. NICHOLS. NO 223.

Nos. 221, 222, and 223

December 14, 1908.

1

Messrs. E. E. Clevenger and Cook Danford for appellant.

2

Mr. A. H. Mitchell for appellees.

3

Per Curiam: Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Applications for Certiorari denied. Chapman v. Bowen, 207 U.S. 89, 52 L. ed. 116, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 32.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer