Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Seibert v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman

Seibert v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman, 129 U.S. 192 (1889)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1889-01-21
Topic: bankruptcy

Me. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court. ^ The facts of this case are similar to those in Seibert v. Lewis, before the court at its October term, 1886, 122 U. S. 284, and it is admitted-by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision there, if adhered to, will control here. He, however, as.ks us to reconsider our rulings and reverse our former judgment.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Seibert v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

SEIBERT v. UNITED STATES,129 U.S. 192(1889)

SEIBERTv. UNITED STATESex rel. HARSHMAN.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

OF MISSOURI.

No. 130.

Submitted December 18, 1888.

Decided January 21, 1889.

Seibertv.Lewis,122 U.S. 284, was very carefully and elaborately considered, and is adhered to.

THE case is stated in the opinion.Page 193

Mr. E. John Ellis, Mr. John JohnsandMr. D.A. McKnightfor plaintiff in error.Mr. Clinton Rowellfor defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case are similar to those inSeibertv.Lewis, before the court at its October term, 1886,122 U.S. 284, and it is admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision there, if adhered to, will control here. He, however, asks us to reconsider our rulings and reverse our former judgment. We see no reason to justify such reconsideration and change of position. The very elaborate argument of counsel is but a re-presentation of the reasons originally offered against the decision in that and analogous cases.Seibertv.Lewiswas very carefully and elaborately considered, and to the doctrines there announced we adhere. Upon its authorityThe judgment of the court below must be affirmed.