Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hood v. Wallace, 182 U.S. 555 (1901)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling sustaining a demurrer to the answer and cross petition of Calvin Hood in his case against the receiver of the Missouri National Bank of Kansas City. The pleadings in this case were the same as in a similar, recently decided case. The lower courts had held in elaborate opinions that the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act that the defendant sought to challenge were constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in this case for the same reasons outlined in its opinion in the other case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1901-05-27 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 182 U.S. 555 Docket: 179

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling sustaining a demurrer to the answer and cross petition of Calvin Hood in his case against the receiver of the Missouri National Bank of Kansas City. The pleadings in this case were the same as in a similar, recently decided case. The lower courts had held in elaborate opinions that the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act that the defendant sought to challenge were constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in this case for the same reasons outlined in its opinion in the other case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views1 page

    Hood v. Wallace, 182 U.S. 555 (1901)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling sustaining a demurrer to the answer and cross petition of Calvin Hood in his case against the receiver of the Missouri National Bank of Kansas City. The pleadings in this case were the same as in a similar, recently decided case. The lower courts had held in elaborate opinions that the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act that the defendant sought to challenge were constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in this case for the same reasons outlined in its opinion in the other case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    182 U.S.

    555
    21 S.Ct. 885
    45 L.Ed. 1227

    CALVIN HOOD, Plff. in Err.,


    v.
    T. B. WALLACE, as Receiver of the Missouri National Bank of
    Kansas City, Missouri.
    No. 179.

    Supreme Court of the United States


    Argued March 11, 1901.
    May 27, 1901

    Messrs. C. N. Sterry, Eugene Hagen, and I. E. Lambert for plaintiff in


    error.
    Messrs. Wm. C. Cochran, J. McD. Trimble, and W. H. Wallace for
    defendant in error.
    Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

    The pleadings in this case are the same as in Lantry v. Wallace, just decided,
    181 U. S. , ante, 878, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 878. The demurrer to the answer
    and cross petition of Hood was sustained in an elaborate opinion by Judge
    Philips, holding the circuit court. 89 Fed. 11. The judgment in that court was
    affirmed in the circuit court of appeals. Lantry v. Wallace, 38 C. C. A. 510, 97
    Fed. 865.

    For the reasons stated in the opinion just rendered in Lantry's Case, the
    judgment in this case is affirmed.

    You might also like