STEVENSON v. BARBOUR, 140 U.S. 48 (1891)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
STEVENSON v. BARBOUR, 140 U.S. 48 (1891)140 U.S. 48
STEVENSON
v.
BARBOUR.
April 20, 1891
J. G. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error.
O. B. Hallam, for defendantin error.
FULLER, C. M.
No assignment of errors accompanies the transcript of record in
this case, nor is there any specification of the errors relied on
in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. Moreover, the
record presents no question of law calling for the exercise of our
right of review. Fishburn v. Railway Co., 137 U.S. 60, ante, 8;
Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U.S.
531, 538, 10 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 166. The judgment is affirmed.[
Stevenson v. Barbour 140 U.S. 48 (1891) ]
Opinions
v.
BARBOUR. April 20, 1891 J. G. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error. O. B. Hallam, for defendantin error. FULLER, C. M. No assignment of errors accompanies the transcript of record in this case, nor is there any specification of the errors relied on in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. Moreover, the record presents no question of law calling for the exercise of our right of review. Fishburn v. Railway Co., 137 U.S. 60, ante, 8; Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U.S. 531, 538, 10 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 166. The judgment is affirmed.[ Stevenson v. Barbour 140 U.S. 48 (1891) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
STEVENSON v. BARBOUR, 140 U.S. 48 (1891) 140 U.S. 48 STEVENSONv.
BARBOUR. April 20, 1891 J. G. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error. O. B. Hallam, for defendantin error. FULLER, C. M. No assignment of errors accompanies the transcript of record in this case, nor is there any specification of the errors relied on in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. Moreover, the record presents no question of law calling for the exercise of our right of review. Fishburn v. Railway Co., 137 U.S. 60, ante, 8; Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U.S. 531, 538, 10 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 166. The judgment is affirmed.[ Stevenson v. Barbour 140 U.S. 48 (1891) ]
Search This Case
