Bolles v. Hamilton County

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 7, 1896.)

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1896-05-07

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the (Tutted States for die Southern District of rilinois.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Field v. Clark · Wayman v. Southard · Smith v. Whitney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1896-05-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1930

5 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Error to the Circuit Court of the (Tutted States for die Southern District of rilinois.

¶2Geo. A. Sanders and Win. R. Bowers, for plaintiff in error.

¶3,T. R. Williams and .T. M. Hamill, for defendant in error.

¶4Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This is an action of assumpsit upon coupons from bonus issued by the county of Hamilton, Ill., to the St. Louis & Southeastern Railway Company. Trial by jury was waived by written agreement, and the court made a general finding and gave judgment tor the plaintiff in error upon a part, but not upon all, of the coupons In suit. There is no special finding of fads, and in other respects also the record is the same as in the case of Woodbury V. City of Shawneetown. 71 Fed. 205. For the reasons there explained, no question is presented for consideration, and the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.