Supreme Court of the United States, 1888

Williams v. Conger

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 22, 1888 · Bradley

131 U.S. 390; 9 S. Ct. 793; 33 L. Ed. 201; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2043 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Eugene Williams for both petitions.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1956)
Sun Oil Co. v. Burford (5th Cir. 1942)
City of Stuart v. Green (5th Cir. 1937)
Moore v. . Harkins (N.C. 1920)
Virginia & West Virginia Coal, Co. v. Charles (4th Cir. 1918)
Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 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

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, • and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.

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