green
Positive treatment
1.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Gas Corporation v. City of Monroe
We might also note the thought expressed in the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court in the Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. case, supra (249 U.S. at page 414, 39 S.Ct. at page 354, 63 L.Ed. at page 678): “There is no showing, as in the nature of things, there cannot be, that the performance of the contract, taking all the years of the term together, will prove unremunerative.” The decision we have reached makes it unnecessary to discuss the position taken by the intervenors since they also prayed that the demands of United Gas Corporation be denied.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burr Et Al., Partners, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Parkinson & Burr,
v.
City of Columbus, Ohio, Et Al.
v.
City of Columbus, Ohio, Et Al.
739.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 14, 1919.
Mr. Joseph S. Clark, with whom Mr. Karl E. Burr, Mr. Henry A. McCarthy, Mr. Henry J. Booth and Mr. W. O. Henderson were on the briefs, for appellants., Mr. Henry L. Scarlett, with whom Mr. David F. Pugh was on the brief, for appellees.
Day.
Published
Memorandum by direction of the court, by
Mr. Justice Day.This case was argued and submitted with No. 715, just decided, ante, 399. It was brought by owners and holders of more than $200,000 of certain mortgage bonds of the Street Railway-Company. The bill alleged diversity of Citizenship, and also rights alleged to arise under the Constitution. The case was heard upon motion for a temporary injunction and upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the bill. The injunction ivas refused, the motion to dismiss was granted and a decree entered accordingly.' To all intents the case is controlled by the decision in No. 715. The decree of the District Court is
Affirmed.