BROUSSARD v. BAKER

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

BROUSSARD v. BAKER, (1916)

No. 199

Argued:     Decided: January 24, 1916

Per Curiam:

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnp. Co. v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co. 228 U.S. 596, 600 , 57 S. L. ed. 982, 983, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U.S. 123, 137 , 58 S. L. ed. 1245, 1254, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 874; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U.S. 380, 382 , 59 S. L. ed. 279, 281, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133; (2) Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361 , 48 L. ed. 1018, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Davis v. Massa- [241 U.S. 639, 640]   chusetts, 167 U.S. 43 , 42 L. ed. 71, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 731; (3) Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389 , 40 L. ed. 467, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344; Washington v. Miller, 235 U.S. 422, 429 , 59 S. L. ed. 295, 299, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119; Roby v. South Park Comrs. 238 U.S. 610 , 59 L. ed. 1488, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 791.

Mr. Frederick S. Tyler for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] Death of N. N. Smith, and appointment of his successor, R. R. Baker, as chief of police of the city of Beaumont, Texas, suggested, and appearance of R. R. Baker, as the party defendant in error herein, filed and entered on November 29, 1915.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More