MEDBERRY ET AL. v. STATE OF OHIO.


65 U.S. 413 (____)

24 How. 413

ARNOLD MEDBERRY, JOHN LAWHEAD, ROBERT H. NUGEN, AND ABNER J. DICKENSON, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF OHIO.

Supreme Court of United States.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

It came up on a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, which was sustained by Mr. Wolcott and Mr. Stanton, and opposed by Mr. Pugh.


Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction, because the record does not present any question which this court has authority to re-examine, by the 25th section of the Judiciary act.

The construction of this section has been so often before this court, and the cases are so numerous which define and establish the conditions under which...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases