Vail v. Richards

Without coAngering the question as to whether the statute of the state of FlonAi c -ought in question be constitutional or not with respect a» the rights involved in this case, but considering that, on the agreed facts as submitted to the circuit court, the plaintiff in fO- <ak ri; below (plaintiff in error here) has no case entitling him .c rrirf, it is ordered that the judgment of the circuit court be, rasd r tie same is hereby, affirmed.