Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

MORGAN'S LOUISIANA AND TEXAS RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. TEXAS CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY; AND METROPOLITAN TRUST COMPANY (1890)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
MORGAN'S LOUISIANA AND TEXAS RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. TEXAS CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY; AND METROPOLITAN TRUST COMPANY
Term: 1890
Important Dates
Argued: November 4, 1890
Decided: November 24, 1890
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
8-0
Majority
Samuel BlatchfordJoseph BradleyDavid Josiah BrewerStephen Johnson FieldMelville Weston FullerHorace GrayJohn Marshall HarlanLucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

MORGAN'S LOUISIANA AND TEXAS RAILROAD AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. TEXAS CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY; AND METROPOLITAN TRUST COMPANY is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on November 24, 1890. The case was argued before the court on November 4, 1890.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1890s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Fuller Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Private Action - Commercial transactions
  • Petitioner: Creditor, including institution appearing as such; e.g., a finance company
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Debtor
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 137 U.S. 171
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Melville Weston Fuller
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Melville Weston Fuller

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as unspecifiable.

See also

External links

Footnotes