THE CONFEDERATE NOTE CASE.; THE ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, THE CHARLOTTE AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, JOSEPH WILSON AND ANDERSON MITCHELL, v. THE CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, L. D. CHILDS, AN (1874)

THE CONFEDERATE NOTE CASE.; THE ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, THE CHARLOTTE AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, JOSEPH WILSON AND ANDERSON MITCHELL, v. THE CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, L. D. CHILDS, AN
	Term: 1873
Important Dates
	Argued: March 30, 1874
	Decided: April 13, 1874
Outcome
	Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
	9-0
Majority
	Joseph Bradley • Nathan Clifford • David Davis • Stephen Johnson Field • Ward Hunt • Samuel Freeman Miller • William Strong • Noah Haynes Swayne • Morrison Waite

THE CONFEDERATE NOTE CASE.; THE ATLANTIC, TENNESSEE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, THE CHARLOTTE AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY, JOSEPH WILSON AND ANDERSON MITCHELL, v. THE CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, L. D. CHILDS, AN is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 13, 1874. The case was argued before the court on March 30, 1874.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1870s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Waite Court, click here.

^[1]

About the case

Subject matter: Private Action - Contracts
Petitioner: Railroad
Petitioner state: Unknown
Respondent type: Stockholder, shareholder, or bondholder
Respondent state: Unknown
Citation: 86 U.S. 548
How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
Who was the chief justice: Morrison Waite
Who wrote the majority opinion: Stephen Johnson Field

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.