Supreme Court of the United States, 1888

East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad v. Southern Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 9, 1888 · Miller

125 U.S. 695; 8 S. Ct. 1391; 31 L. Ed. 853; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1956 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Gaylord B. Clark for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief., No appearance by counsel for defendant in error. Mr. V. A. Gunter was attorney of record for it.

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision. The 16 that cite it most often are listed here.

Gordon Gould, Refac International, Limited, Patlex Corporation, and Creative Patents, Inc. v. Control Laser Corporation and Holobeam Laser Corporation (Fed. Cir. 1989)
Hamburg-American Line v. United States (1st Cir. 1948)
Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1910)
Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1909)
Western Electric Co. v. Anthracite Telephone Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1902)
Western Electric Co. v. Anthracite Tel. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1900)
Commonwealth v. Aguayo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1958)
Estado Libre Asociado v. Aguayo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1958)
KFAB Broadcasting Co. v. Sorensen (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
Hatfield v. King (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
State v. Lambert (W. Va. 1902)
Hatfield v. King (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
Weaver v. Kelly (5th Cir. 1899)
Mills v. Green (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Mills v. Green (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Arnold v. Woolsey (8th Cir. 1893)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Me. Justice Miller,

on the 9th of April, 1888, delivered the opinion of the court.

It was suggested by a letter from counsel employed on one side of this suit that his party had sold out the interest which it had to the other party, who was prosecuting it now and was dommus litis on both sides. • A ruling was made some time ago, before the death of the late Chief Justice, in effect "that there was sufficient evidence to that effect to require the case to be dismissed unless the ‘side now prosecuting it for decision would show satisfactory evidence that it was a bona fide suit. ' Two attempts have been made, and we are agreed in the opinion that they are both failures and that the 'original order should now be carried out, dismissing the case on the grounds set forth in the opinion of the Chief Justice, delivered at the time.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.